Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4749

Bill Overview

Title: COPS Responsible Administration and Management Act

Description: This bill provides for evaluations of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program with respect to its administration and effectiveness, as well as the compliance of grantees with civil rights laws. It also provides for grants and other changes to the COPS program to support (1) state and local participation in the National Use-of-Force Data Collection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and (2) conformance of state and local law enforcement agencies with federal policies that generally prohibit chokeholds and no-knock entries.

Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals served or impacted by state and local law enforcement agencies

Estimated Size: 200000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Police Officer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see a lot of potential in the COPS program to build better relationships with the community.
  • Chokeholds and no-knocks have been controversial; moving away from them could reduce tensions.
  • There are a lot of changes officers will need to adapt to, which could be challenging, particularly for older officers.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Community Organizer (Houston, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that promotes transparency in police actions is crucial for our community.
  • We have had major issues with force used by police; these changes could save lives.
  • If implemented well, this policy could mean a better future for our children with less fear of police brutality.

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 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Retired Farmer (Rural Iowa)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I don't think this will change much for folks like us who don't often deal with the police.
  • It's important for cities, but here, we're already on good terms with our local officers.

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

Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy seems like a good step in the right direction for civil rights.
  • If it leads to more accountable policing, I would support it fully.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Police Captain (New York, NY)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It will be a logistical challenge but necessary to align with modern compliance standards.
  • We need clear guidelines and support to make these changes, especially concerning data collection and chokehold policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

College Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 23 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I’m skeptical but hopeful that these reforms could help curb police brutality.
  • It’s essential for community trust that such policies are backed by real accountability mechanisms.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

School Teacher (Detroit, MI)

Age: 57 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm deeply invested in seeing how this plays out for both our kids and police department relationships.
  • Education on new policies will be key to the community trusting these changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'll wait to see if this actually results in safer communities, which is what every business needs.
  • It’s essential for businesses to feel that law enforcement is both effective and fair.

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 7

Freelance Journalist (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could shine a light on necessary data collection regarding use-of-force incidents.
  • Transparency should always be a priority, and these steps are in the right direction.

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 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired Nurse (Boston, MA)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm heartened by the focus on civil rights compliance, especially with older policies.
  • The ability to access real-time data on police use-of-force incidents is critical for accountability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)

Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $84000000, High: $126000000)

Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $88000000, High: $132000000)

Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $96000000, High: $144000000)

Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)

Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)

Key Considerations