Bill Overview
Title: COPS on the Beat Grant Program Reauthorization and Parity Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2031 and makes changes to the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program. Among the changes, the bill reduces the required matching contribution for certain rural communities during the first three years of a grant and eliminates the preference for agencies that exceed the matching requirements; allows grant funds to be used to increase wages of career law enforcement officers in states or localities that have a median household income of less than 70% of the national median household income and qualify for a reduced matching contribution; and provides statutory authority for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services within the Department of Justice. Additionally, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to report on whether law enforcement workforces are representative of the communities they serve, the percentage of law enforcement employees who live in the community they serve, the average pay of officers compared to the cost of living in the community they serve, and recommendations for improvements.
Sponsors: Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC-7]
Target Audience
Population: People served by law enforcement agencies across the US
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill impacts funding and grant allocations specifically for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which will directly affect law enforcement agencies across the United States.
- The reduction in required matching contributions primarily aids rural communities, which often have smaller budgets and greater difficulty meeting grant matching requirements.
- Law enforcement officers in states or localities with a median household income below 70% of the national median will be impacted positively by potential wage increases.
- Rural communities and agencies with tighter budgets will find it easier to qualify and benefit from grants with the new changes in matching contributions.
- Indirectly, communities served by these law enforcement agencies may see changes in policing levels or officer compensation, impacting community-police relationships and public safety outcomes.
Reasoning
- The COPS program reauthorization would primarily impact law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, particularly in rural and low-income areas.
- The policy reduces the financial burden on rural communities for obtaining COPS grants by reducing the required matching contribution, which may enable these communities to effectively increase police presence or improve officer compensation.
- By allowing grant funds to increase wages of officers in low-income areas, the policy could enhance the financial well-being of officers, potentially improving job satisfaction and retention rates.
- The requirement for accountability and transparency, such as GAO reporting, may ensure that the grants are effectively improving community policing and law enforcement efficacy.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (rural Georgia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will be beneficial if it helps us keep more officers around. We need more security in our small town.
- However, I'd like to see more transparency on how the funds are being used in the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Police Officer (inner-city Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing wages through these grants could really help us out. Living costs are high, and this can lift the burden.
- It's a step towards valuing our work more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (rural Mississippi)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If it means we'll have more presence of law enforcement and less crime, I'm all for it.
- But I hope it doesn't come with increased policing in a negative way, impacting community trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Bartender (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried more cops mean more interactions that could go wrong even in well-meaning neighborhoods like mine.
- While I see the potential for good, there's a lot of mistrust and it needs to be addressed transparently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farm Owner (rural Idaho)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding like this might help us have better law enforcement coverage—a relief when dealing with issues in far-flung areas.
- It's a wise choice as long as it doesn't add to any tax burdens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public Health Administrator (Richmond, Virginia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community-oriented policing could greatly benefit our work—reducing conflicts and promoting mental health.
- Important to ensure that the funds focus on building community relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Sheriff (rural Nebraska)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This grant funding means we can keep up with community needs and potentially do more.
- However, long-term sustainability of the program funding is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Law Student (urban New York City)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any increased funding for police should be watched closely for its community impact.
- Would be positive if it means more community policing, less escalation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Stay-at-Home Parent (suburban Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If policing becomes more connected and community-oriented, we're safer, which reassures us as parents.
- Transparency and accountability are essential in using these funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Postmaster (rural West Virginia)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra policing funds always help, especially in towns where resources are limited.
- We're concerned it should not burden us in other ways, like taxes or diverted funds from other public needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $220000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $230000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $240000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $260000000)
Year 10: $280000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $680000000, High: $720000000)
Key Considerations
- The program helps support law enforcement amid budget constraints, especially in rural and low-income communities.
- Long-term impacts depend on effective deployment of grants and law enforcement policy and management.
- Ensuring proper evaluation and transparency of fund use is critical to achieving policy goals.