Bill Overview
Title: COPS on the Beat Grant Program Parity Act of 2022
Description: This bill 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 officers 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: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Target Audience
Population: People in rural U.S. communities and law enforcement officers in low-income areas
Estimated Size: 1500000
- The bill focuses on changes to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program, which affects law enforcement agencies across the U.S.
- The reduced matching contribution requirement benefits rural communities, which house a significant portion of the U.S. population, especially those with lower average incomes.
- Law enforcement officers in qualifying low-income jurisdictions could see wage increases through grant use, affecting their well-being directly.
- The bill involves the Government Accountability Office examining law enforcement workforces throughout the U.S., likely impacting recruitment and policy adjustments for diverse representation.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy primarily includes law enforcement officers in rural and low-income areas as well as the communities they serve.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will have a noticeable effect in selected areas where it can meaningfully subsidize salaries and provide additional resources.
- Weights in the simulations reflect a mix of immediate direct effects on law enforcement officers and gradual indirect effects on community welfare as perceived policing improves.
- To reflect a realistic distribution, consideration was given to a mix of people directly benefiting, those indirectly impacted, and those outside the primary demographic.
Simulated Interviews
Law enforcement officer (Appalachian Ohio)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see some recognition of the financial issues we face in rural areas.
- Our department has seen how these grants can help stretch our budget a bit further.
- A focus on improving wages would make a huge difference in officer retention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Farm owner (Rural Kansas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could bring more officers into the area which we've needed for a long time.
- I'm worried the long-term funding might not be sustainable.
- Increased law presence might help reduce theft and property damage.
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 |
Public school teacher (Southern Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't work in law enforcement, safer neighborhoods make better environments for teaching.
- My concern is whether these things get done transparently.
- There needs to be an accountability measure to track the impact.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired law enforcement officer (Urban Kentucky)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical to support the new generation of officers, especially in rural areas.
- I have mixed feelings about the new funding model, as it might create dependency.
- The policy gives room to train officers from within their communities which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Software developer (Northern California)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds essential for regions that often get overlooked.
- Encouraged to see some accountability expected from law enforcement.
- I am personally not impacted directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Law enforcement officer (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like it could mean more resources for us.
- Higher wages would definitely keep more officers around.
- Hopefully, it also means resources for better training.
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 | 3 |
Grocery store owner (Appalachian Virginia)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving the situation for local law enforcement could really help the whole community.
- I worry about increased crime rates without more officers.
- I'd like to know how long-term these grants will be.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College student (Southern Georgia)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is motivating because it might create more opportunities for local recruitment.
- Safer communities make it easier to study and live.
- Easy to see how it might directly impact my future career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Healthcare worker (Remote Alaska)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our nearest officers are often stretched thin, anything that helps them helps us.
- I am hopeful for the additional resources that could come.
- I worry that promises on paper sometimes don't translate to change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
High school principal (Northern Alabama)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in community policing impacts school safety as well.
- I see a long-term benefit to education when neighborhoods are safer.
- I remain cautious on how funds get distributed.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $410000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $460000000)
Year 3: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 5: $440000000 (Low: $390000000, High: $490000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Long-term sustainability of wage increases for law enforcement officers without continuous grant support.
- Impact on federal budget allocations to other policing or public safety programs.
- The ability of local law enforcement to meet reduced matching requirements.
- The administrative capacity of the revised Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to manage increased responsibilities.