Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7826

Bill Overview

Title: Pathways to Policing Act

Description: This bill authorizes the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services within the Department of Justice to award grants to states, local governments, and law enforcement agencies to support recruitment of law enforcement officers. In particular, these grants may be used for (1) marketing and recruitment campaigns to encourage candidates to seek careers in law enforcement; and (2) developing, operating, or expanding Pathways to Policing programs (e.g., programs that facilitate entry into full-time law enforcement positions for certain candidates).

Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals seeking careers in law enforcement

Estimated Size: 1025000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Criminal Justice Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy will make it easier for people like me to pursue a career in law enforcement.
  • The grants could mean more support and training opportunities, which is crucial for someone starting out.

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 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Community Organizer (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am worried this policy might increase recruitment without addressing needed reforms in policing.
  • It could be an opportunity, however, to bring more diversity into law enforcement agencies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Police Chief (Dallas, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increasing recruitment efforts is essential, and this policy provides the resources to do it effectively.
  • The challenge will be ensuring recruits are well-trained and align with modern policing values.

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 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Police Officer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It could help in getting more officers which is good, but I hope it also focuses on community engagement.
  • It's a step forward, but the program’s success will rely on its execution.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Retired Officer (Detroit, MI)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this as a good opportunity for young folks to enter the field with strong support.
  • It should include mentoring programs to help guide the new recruits.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Law Student (New York, NY)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Additional funding for police recruitment raises ethical concerns unless coupled with reform measures.
  • Grants could be positive if used to diversify the forces and improve community relationships.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Volunteer at Community Center (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 24 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might open up new career pathways for someone like me who wants to serve my community.
  • It would be great if these programs also emphasized building trust within communities.

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 6
Year 20 8 5

Community College Instructor (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased resources for recruitment can lead to better education and training opportunities in my courses.
  • It's important that this leads to more educated officers who understand modern-day policing challenges.

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 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Unemployed, considering policing (Miami, FL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This program might just be the chance I need to enter the police force and secure a job.
  • Having structured pathways could make the process less intimidating.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

City Council Member (Rural Kansas)

Age: 58 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Grants from this policy could support programs we need to build stronger community-police partnerships.
  • It's all about ensuring these initiatives align with community needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $260000000)

Year 3: $210125000 (Low: $159750000, High: $265000000)

Year 5: $220653125 (Low: $167750000, High: $275000000)

Year 10: $243073000 (Low: $185000000, High: $300000000)

Year 100: $385000000 (Low: $275000000, High: $500000000)

Key Considerations