Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/2151

Bill Overview

Title: A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide that COPS grant funds may be used for local law enforcement recruits to attend schools or academies if the recruits agree to serve in precincts of law enforcement agencies in their communities.

Description: This bill allows funds under the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program to be used to provide training to officers and recruits who agree to serve in law enforcement agencies in their communities.

Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals involved or interested in joining local law enforcement

Estimated Size: 600000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Police Recruit (Rural Ohio)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy is a great step. Funding training is crucial, especially in areas like ours where we can't afford much.
  • It will definitely help me and others who want to join the force but are worried about costs.

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 9 5

Veteran Police Officer (Urban New York)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support anything that helps bring in more recruits prepared for the job.
  • In my precinct, we're less affected since we have good training programs, but I can see this helping smaller precincts immensely.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Community Activist (Suburban California)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Funding that focuses on community policing training is essential.
  • The policy aligns with our goals of improving police-community interactions, so I believe it will have a long-term positive impact.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Police Chief (Southern Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This funding could be a game-changer in retaining officers who leave due to inadequate training opportunities.
  • Our community really needs this boost to keep good officers and attract new ones.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Prospective Law Enforcement Recruit (Midwest USA)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy funding would remove a huge barrier for someone like me who's been saving up for training.
  • It makes the idea of joining the police much less daunting financially.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 4
Year 2 8 4
Year 3 8 4
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Police Officer (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 26 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm new to the force, and having this kind of financial backing is reassuring.
  • Ongoing training is so important, and knowing the costs are covered helps me focus on doing my job well.

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 9 7

Community Leader (Newark, New Jersey)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More officers trained and staying in our community could lead to better relationships and safer streets.
  • I think the policy helps emphasize that investing in local law enforcement is investing in the community.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

College Student (Western Pennsylvania)

Age: 21 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the costs of training are lower, it makes pursuing a career in law enforcement a lot more appealing.
  • This policy could definitely influence my decision to join the police force after graduating.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Police Officer (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's good to see an initiative focused on keeping new recruits in the communities they come from.
  • I've seen firsthand how training deficiencies can lead to high turnover, so this policy might really help address that issue.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 5

High School Senior (Northern Minnesota)

Age: 19 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could really open doors for people like me who are interested in joining the police but can't afford the cost of training.
  • Knowing there's financial support makes me more confident about pursuing this career path after graduation.

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 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)

Key Considerations