National Evaluation of the COPS Program

303 Pages·2000·1.36 MB·English

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
National
Evaluation
of the COPS
Program
Title I of the 1994 Crime Act
research report
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Janet Reno
Attorney General
Daniel Marcus
Acting Associate Attorney General
Mary Lou Leary
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
National Evaluation of
the COPS Program—
Title I of the 1994 Crime Act
by
Jeffrey A. Roth, Joseph F. Ryan, Stephen J. Gaffigan, Christopher S. Koper, Mark H. Moore,
Janice A. Roehl, Calvin C. Johnson, Gretchen E. Moore, Ruth M. White, Michael E. Buerger,
Elizabeth A. Langston, David Thacher
with
Catherine Coles, Francis X. Hartmann, Daryl Herrschaft, Edward R. Maguire,
Peter Sheingold, and Mary K. Shelley
Co-principal Investigators
Jeffrey A. Roth
Joseph F. Ryan
August 2000
NCJ 183643
Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director
Steven M. Edwards
Program Manager
This evaluation was supported, with funds transferred from the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, under an award (number 95–IJ–CX–0073) to the Urban Institute by the Na-
tional Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and
conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors’ views should not be
attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
iii
Foreword
Title I of the 1994 Crime Act (Violent Crime On the basis of a competitive process, NIJ
Control and Law Enforcement Act) encour- awarded the grant to the Urban Institute, which
aged local and State law enforcement agencies embarked on a series of national telephone
to pursue two objectives simultaneously: surveys, site visits, case studies, and other
increase the number of sworn officers on the data collection efforts focusing on the COPS
street and adopt community policing. Signed program. The data and findings presented in
into law on September 13, 1994, the legisla- this report represent the results of the indepen-
tion authorized nearly $9 billion over 6 years dent evaluation conducted by the Urban
to achieve those objectives. Institute.
Soon after the signing of the Crime Act legis- This Research Report presents evaluation
lation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) findings based primarily on the first 4 years
created the Office of Community Oriented of the COPS program, but includes several
Policing Services (COPS) to administer the projections up to 2003. Analyses of data
new grant program and fulfill the mandated collected in mid-2000 are under way and
objectives of Title I. may result in refinements of some findings.
The Act also authorized funds for the Attorney In addition to the national evaluation, NIJ
General to initiate a national evaluation of has awarded several grants to researchers
what soon became known as the COPS program. for jurisdiction-specific studies focusing on
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—the transitions to community policing and on other
primary research and development arm of related issues.
DOJ—issued a solicitation requesting propos-
als from organizations desiring to compete for
the task. Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director
National Institute of Justice
v
Acknowledgments
This evaluation combines the work of many We owe thanks to our colleagues at the National
people. In such a joint enterprise, fairly recog- Opinion Research Center (NORC), who con-
nizing the credit and responsibility that each ducted three waves of national law enforcement
contributor is due is no easy task. agency surveys. Cathy Haggerty directed
Wave 1; Alma Kuby and Laurie Imhof directed
The list of coauthors on the title page is ordered Waves 2 and 3; and Phil Panczuk did the com-
to identify the two co-principal investigators, plex programming needed for computer-assisted
followed by alphabetical lists of: four lead telephone interviewing at all three waves. We are
authors of chapters; the leader and two mem- grateful to the NORC interviewing teams for their
bers of an analysis team whose work permeates persistence and accuracy, and to the 1,724 law
most of the report; three coauthors of at least enforcement chief executives and designees who
one chapter; and six colleagues whose findings, answered their questions.
insights, databases, or analyses helped make
this volume what it is. At the Urban Institute, John Roman and Mary
Norris Spence capably managed several data
Three coauthors—Buerger, Langston, and collection operations. O. Jay Arwood produced
Roehl—led programmatic assessment the text, tables, and figures for three complete
teams that generated rich reports based on drafts of this report; he displayed creativity,
site visits to 30 COPS grantee agencies. accuracy, and grace under pressure well beyond
Other leaders and members of site teams the call of duty. He, Diana Dandridge, Joyce
were Thomas Cowper, Mark Cunniff, Sparrow, and Nicole Brewer provided the
Lawrence Fetters, Jack Greene, Blaine administrative support needed throughout this
Liner, Ray Manus, Michael Maxfield, complex project.
Edmund McGarrell, Alberto Melis, Kevin
Reeves, William Rehm, Roger Rokicki, The COPS Office supported us in every way
and Dennis Rosenbaum. We are grateful to that an evaluator has a right to expect: providing
all of them and to the chief executives and background information, answering our ques-
staff, too numerous to mention here, of the tions, providing manual and automated files, and
30 agencies that hosted our teams, an- constructively challenging our interim findings
swered their questions, and reviewed their as needed. Directors Joseph Brann and Thomas
draft reports. Frazier created a cordial climate within which
others—especially Pam Cammarata, Charlotte
Three more coauthors—Coles, Sheinbaum, and Grzebian, Dave Hayeslip, Gil Kerlikowske, Nina
Thacher—also served double duty, by writing Pozgar, Ellen Scrivner, Benjamin Tucker, and
case studies of organizational change in 10 Craig Uchida—arranged or provided whatever
COPS grantee agencies, under the direction of assistance we requested.
Mark Moore and Francis Hartmann. We are
grateful to them and to the chiefs and staff of Joseph Koons extracted and explained the
those 10 agencies. COPS Office grants management data that we
needed to study grantees. Cynthia Schwimer
vi
provided financial data from the Office of and Tom Feucht, Director and Deputy Director,
Justice Program’s Office of the Comptroller. respectively, NIJ Office of Research and Evalu-
Weldon Kennedy and Brian Reaves provided ation; and Steve Edwards, Program Manager.
datasets from the Federal Bureau of Investiga- Acting NIJ Director Julie Samuels provided
tion and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, respec- helpful comments and background information
tively, that we needed to construct the sample in the project’s final stages. We also wish to
frame for nongrantees. thank four anonymous peer reviewers, courtesy
NIJ; their comments greatly improved the
We are grateful to the National Institute of report and we appreciate them.
Justice not only for the opportunity to conduct
this study, but also for protecting the study’s We hope that all these contributors consider the
independence, providing background informa- final product worthy of their efforts. Responsi-
tion, and editing the report. Providing support bility rests with us for any errors or omissions
throughout the entire project were Jeremy that remain despite the valuable assistance
Travis, former NIJ Director; Sally Hillsman received.
vii
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The National Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The COPS Program and Its Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
COPS Application Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Distribution of COPS Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Officer Hiring, Deployment, and Retention Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
MORE Awards and Projected Productivity Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
COPS Effects on Policing Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
COPS and the Style of American Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Measures of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 2. Origins and Objectives of the COPS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Evolution of a Presidential Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
From Police Reforms to Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The 1994 Crime Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Planning and Launching the COPS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Pursuing Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Evaluation Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Chapter 3. The Flow of COPS Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Overview of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Terms of COPS Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Agencies’ Application and Withdrawal Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
The Flow of COPS Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Coordination of Multiple Grants for Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Grantees as Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
From COPS Office Grant Decisions to Funds Expended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Chapter 4. Using COPS Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Overview of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Hiring Grants: Recruiting, Training, and Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Officer Retention and Redeployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Implementing COPS MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
viii
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Appendix 4–A. Implementing MORE-Funded Mobile Computing Technology . . . . . . . . . . 143
Chapter 5. Putting 100,000 Officers on the Street: Progress as of 1998
and Preliminary Projections Through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Summary of Interim Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Hiring Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
MORE Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Projecting the Course of the First 100,000 Officers Awarded Through COPS . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Appendix 5–A. Variances and Confidence Intervals for Estimated Ratios
and Proportions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Chapter 6. COPS and the Nature of Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Data Sources and Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Defining Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Problem Solving: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Organizational Changes in Support of Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
COPS and Community Policing: Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Appendix 6–A. Policing Tactics Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Appendix 6–B. Estimation Models for Assessing Tactic-Specific
Differences Between COPS-Funded and Nonfunded Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Chapter 7. COPS Grants, Leadership, and Transitions to Community Policing . . . . . . . 247
The Methodology of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Measuring the Change Toward Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Accounting for High Levels of Achievement and Rapid Change:
The Role of the Context and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Accounting for High Levels of Achievement: The Role of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Appendix 7–A. Empirical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Methodological Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Survey Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
The Sample Frame and the National Law Enforcement Agency List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Sample Strata and Designed Sampling Fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Survey Completion Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Weights and Sampling Errors: Accounting for Multiple Selection Probabilities . . . . . . . . . 285
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
ix
Tables
Table 1–1. Estimates of COPS Impact on Level of U.S. Policing
Table 3–1. Discounted COPS-Supported Share of Officers’ Discounted Life Cycle Costs
Table 3–2. Participation of Stakeholders in COPS Application Process by Agency Size and Type
Table 3–3. Prevalence of “Frequent” Indicators of Community Support for Police, by COPS
Funding Status, 1996
Table 3–4. Reasons for Nonapplication, Wave 1 and Wave 3, Ranked in Order of Mentions
Table 3–5. COPS Grant Status of Agencies, by Jurisdiction Size, Eligibility, Program, and
Application Status, 1995–97 (Cumulative)
Table 3–6. Estimated Award Distribution by Agency Type and Year (Cumulative in Millions)
Table 3–7. Distribution of COPS Funds for All Agency Types and for Local/County Agencies
Table 3–8. Regional Distribution of COPS Hiring and MORE Grants and Funds Through 1997
Table 3–9. Regional Distribution of Grants to Core City and Other Grantees, Cumulative
Through 1997
Table 3–10. COPS Grantees’ Use of Non-COPS Funds for Community Policing
Table 3–11a. Accepted Grant Applications and Sum of Awards and Officer-Equivalents
(Cumulative Through 1995)
Table 3–11b. Accepted Grant Applications and Sum of Awards and Officer-Equivalents
(Cumulative Through 1996)
Table 3–11c. Accepted Grant Applications and Sum of Awards and Officer-Equivalents
(Cumulative Through 1997)
Table 3–12. Elapsed Time in Processing COPS Grant Applications, by Stage
Table 3–13. COPS Grant Obligations and Debits by Program Selection and Year (Cumulative)
Table 4–1. 1996 Status of FAST/AHEAD Officers Funded in 1995
Table 4–2. Time From Award Obligation to Hiring for 1995 FAST and AHEAD Grantees
(Agencies That Had Hired Officers as of Fall 1996): Cumulative Percentages Hiring
Within Selected Time Frames
Table 4–3. Types of Training for COPS-Funded Officers (FAST and AHEAD Grantees)