Since 1994, the COPS Office  has awarded roughly $14 billion to advance community policing through  its various grant programs. Nearly Half of CHP Funding In the Past 5 Years Was Awarded to Grantees in Six States, and Award Amounts Varied Considerably in Certain Years

As the interactive map in figure 2 illustrates, CHP grant awards were  distributed throughout the United States from fiscal years 2008 through  2012. The interactive map can be accessed here:  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-521  As figure 3 illustrates, 48 percent of the funding was awarded to grantees  in six states—California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas. For grantees awarded the same number of officers, differences were  driven mainly by variation across grantees’ respective entry-level officer  salaries and benefits—the only costs CHP allows. However, this variation  was more prominent during years when salary and benefit levels were not  statutorily capped: 2009 through 2011. Thus, during the period 2009  through 2011, grantees with higher officer salary and benefit levels  generally received more CHP funding relative to other CHP grantees to  hire, rehire, or prevent layoffs for the same number of officers. The COPS Office’s CHP Application Collects Information Required by Statute, but Could Be Further Enhanced by Clarifying that CHP- Funded Officers Are Required to Be Engaged in Community Policing Activities

The CHP application solicits information from applicants in accordance  with statute, but the COPS office may realize benefits by revising the  application to clarify for applicants that CHP-funded officers are required  to be the personnel specifically engaged in the community policing  activities described on the application. Revising the application to clarify for applicants that CHP-funded officers  are required to be the personnel specifically engaged in the community  policing activities described on the application, consistent with best  practices, would better position the COPS office to ascertain from  applicants how these particular officers’ activities would advance  community policing. The COPS Office’s Monitoring Process Assesses How Grantees Are Using CHP Funds to Advance Community Policing, but Could Be Improved through Additional Monitoring Guidance

		The COPS Office Takes a Risk-Based Approach to Grant Monitoring and Has Processes to Monitor How Grantees Are Using Funds

To help ensure that grantees are implementing the activities and meeting  the financial requirements they committed to in their respective  applications, the COPS Office is required to monitor at least 10 percent of  its open, active grant funding annually. According to the Domestic  Working Group’s guide for improving grant accountability, it is important  that agencies identify, prioritize, and manage potential at-risk grantees. However, for the remaining 5 of 21 grantees, we found that the monitors  did not document their assessments of supplanting issues, and it was not  clear how they reached conclusions regarding potential supplanting. According to Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government, the documentation of agency  activities is a key element of accountability for decisions. By enhancing  the COPS Office’s monitoring guidance, such as its standards or  operations manual, to require monitors to document the results of their  supplanting analysis in the on-site monitoring reports for instances where  the determination is made that no supplanting has occurred, the COPS  Office could be better positioned to ensure that monitors are consistently  assessing supplanting and that CHP funding is supplementing and not  replacing state and local funding. In addition, we found that while the COPS Office has  developed standards and an operations manual for monitors to use in  assessing the potential for supplanting, the COPS Office’s monitoring  standards and operations manual do not require monitors to document  their analysis and conclusions in instances in which the determination is  ultimately made that supplanting has not occurred. Recommendations for Executive Action

To further enhance the accountability of the CHP, the Attorney General  should direct the COPS Office Director to take the following two actions:   1.  revise the CHP application to clarify for applicants that CHP-funded  officers are required to be the personnel specifically engaged in the  community policing activities described on the application; and  2.  enhance the COPS Office’s guidance, such as its monitoring  standards or operations manual, by requiring monitors to document  the results of their supplanting analysis in on-site monitoring reports  for instances where the determination is made that no supplanting has  occurred. Specifically, the COPS Office disagreed with the  statements that (1) the 2012 CHP application does not specifically ask  applicants to explain how CHP-funded officers will be deployed in  community policing and that (2) less than 20 percent of the applications  funded in 2010, 2011, and 2012 contained evidence showing how  additional CHP-funded officers would be deployed to community policing. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report answers the following questions: (1) From fiscal years 2008  through 2012, in what areas of the country was the Community Oriented  Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) funding disbursed and to  what extent did award amounts vary during this period? (2) To what  extent does the COPS Office’s grant application collect information about  how applicants plan to use CHP-funded officers to advance community  policing? (3) To what extent does the COPS Office’s monitoring process  assess whether grantees are using funds to advance community  policing? Specifically, we used elements of the CHP  authorizing statute and key best practices for grant management to  develop a data collection instrument we used to review all applications  from a sample of 103 out of the 841 grants awarded during fiscal years  2010, 2011, and 2012.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since its 1994 inception, the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) COPS Office has awarded roughly $14 billion in grants to support the advancement of community policing, which is a policing approach that proactively addresses the conditions that give rise to public safety issues, such as crime and social disorder. GAO was asked to review key grant management practices within the COPS Office. This report focuses on the largest of its programs--CHP, which awards grants to law enforcement agencies to hire law enforcement officers, rehire officers who have been laid off, or prevent scheduled officer layoffs. This report addresses: (1) From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, in what areas of the country was CHP funding disbursed and to what extent did award amounts vary during this period? (2) To what extent does the COPS Office's grant application collect information about how applicants plan to use CHPfunded officers to advance community policing? (3) To what extent does the COPS Office's monitoring process assess whether grantees are using funds to advance community policing?
GAO examined budget data and monitoring reports for 55 grantees, interviewed agency officials, and evaluated CHP applications from a systematic random sample of 103 CHP grants awarded from fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

What GAO Found

Nearly half of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) funding from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 was awarded to grantees in six states, and award amounts varied considerably in certain years. During this period, state, county, and city law enforcement agencies nationwide received CHP grant awards to hire or rehire officers to advance community policing, with 48 percent of the funds awarded to grantees in California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas. For grantees awarded the same number of officers, differences were driven mainly by variation across grantees' respective entry-level officer salaries and benefits. Variation in grantee award amounts were more prominent during 2009, 2010, and 2011, when salary and benefit levels were not statutorily capped, and grantees with higher officer salary and benefit levels generally received more CHP funding relative to other CHP grantees for the same number of officers.
The COPS Office's CHP application collects information required by statute from grant applicants, but could be further enhanced by revising the application to clarify for applicants that CHP-funded officers are required to be the personnel specifically engaged in the community policing activities described on the application. The application asks applicants to provide information on how they plan to implement community policing agency-wide, but does not specifically ask applicants to explain how CHP-funded officers will be deployed in community policing--the primary statutory purpose of the CHP program. According to GAO analysis of a systematic random sample of 103 CHP-funded applications, GAO estimated that less than 20 percent of the applications funded in 2010, 2011, and 2012 contained evidence showing how additional officers would be deployed in community policing. The Domestic Working Group's guide for grant accountability recommends that agencies require applicants to include information describing, among other things, their approach for using the funds and the specific activities that are crucial to the success of the program. Revising the application to clarify for applicants that CHP-funded officers are required to be the personnel specifically engaged in the community policing activities described on the application, consistent with best practices, would better position the COPS office to ascertain from applicants how these particular officers' activities would advance community policing.
The COPS Office's risk-based approach to monitoring assesses how grantees are using funds to advance community policing, but could be improved through additional monitoring guidance. The authorizing statute for the COPS grant programs contains a prohibition against supplanting-- using federal funds to replace state or local funds. The COPS Office developed standards and an operations manual for monitors to use in assessing the potential for supplanting. For 5 of the 21 grantees at risk for supplanting, GAO found that the monitors did not document their analyses of supplanting and it was not clear how they reached conclusions regarding supplanting. The manual requires monitors to document their supplanting analysis in instances in which supplanting is identified, but does not have this requirement for nonsupplanting. According to internal control standards, the documentation of agency activities is a key element of accountability for decisions. By enhancing the COPS Office's monitoring guidance to require monitors to document their results where the determination is made that supplanting has not occurred, the COPS Office may be better positioned to ensure that monitors are consistently assessing supplanting and that CHP funding is supplementing and not replacing state and local funding.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the COPS Office revise and clarify the CHP application and enhance guidance to require monitors to document their analysis results of non-supplanting in monitoring reports. The COPS Office generally concurred with the recommendations and described actions to address them.