Bill Overview
Title: Retain COPS Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows funds under the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program to be used for salary increases to retain law enforcement officers.
Sponsors: Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People served by law enforcement officers supported by COPS grants
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The COPS grant program is designed to support local and state law enforcement agencies across the United States.
- Funds from the program can be utilized by a wide range of jurisdictions, both urban and rural, areas which further expand the affected population.
- Law enforcement officers employed by agencies receiving these grants are directly impacted.
- The families of current and prospective officers may also be indirectly impacted due to the financial stability afforded by the salary increases.
- Communities served by these officers may experience improved policing due to increased officer retention.
Reasoning
- The COPS Act of 2022 provides financial support aiming at increasing the salaries for law enforcement officers to retain them.
- The policy focuses on state and local law enforcement agencies across urban and rural US areas, which may lead to diverse impacts on individuals.
- The budget constraints within year 1 of $50 million and a span of $740 million over 10 years suggest the program directly affects a smaller yet significant portion of the 700,000 officers or their jurisdictions.
- Those directly involved or families dependent on this salary can potentially see an increase in their own wellbeing due to financial improvements.
- Indirectly, communities might enjoy enhancements in policing related to officer retention, thus affecting community wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about potential salary increases.
- This could mean better financial stability for my family.
- Retaining experienced officers is beneficial for both us and the community.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Police Sergeant (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased salaries would alleviate some financial pressure.
- Improved retention could aid in building stronger community relations.
- Concerned about whether all eligible officers will truly benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Sheriff's Deputy (Rural Arkansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy promises more stability for my job and future.
- Extra money could help me move out to a place of my own.
- I'm hopeful but skeptical about how soon it'll take effect in rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Community Leader (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better salaries could encourage officers to stay in high turnover areas.
- I'm hopeful this will reduce the officer shortages we've felt locally.
- There's a concern that bigger cities might benefit more than smaller ones.
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 | 4 |
Police Officer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any financial relief is welcome, considering family expenses.
- I believe it'll improve job satisfaction overall for many of us.
- Concerned it might increase competition for the grant resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Officer, now a Security Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see policies focusing on officer retention.
- Concerned about long-term viability beyond immediate budget limits.
- Hopes the policy can support meaningful changes to officer wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Probationary Police Officer (Portland, ME)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fair pay is crucial during my probation and training phase.
- Supports efforts aiming to keep officers motivated and committed.
- Worries whether newer officers will see benefits similar to senior officers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Police Officer (Austin, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a financial relief for officers planning families.
- It encourages retention, which benefits community-police relations.
- Skeptical if the funding reaches all eligible departments equally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Police Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of financial recognition improves mental wellbeing.
- Such policies help officers feel valued and lead to improved public service.
- I'm curious about how the policy impacts ongoing training incentives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Outreach Coordinator (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retaining experienced officers is critical for community safety.
- This policy might reduce turnover, making outreach programs more effective.
- Hoping this leads to sustained changes beyond the immediate budget.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $88000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $96000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $112000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $240000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy focuses on retaining officers through pay increases, not expanding officer numbers, which may limit the geographical distribution benefits.
- Salary increases need to be appropriately managed to ensure equitable distribution among jurisdictions.
- The long-term fiscal impact will depend on the retention effectiveness and resultant law enforcement efficiencies.