BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S
1999-2000 Regular Session B
1
9
3
SB 1936 (Schiff) 6
As Introduced February 24, 2000
Hearing date: April 25, 2000
Government Code (URGENCY)
HS:mc
CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) -
EXTENSION AND FUNDING
HISTORY
Source: Governor's Office
Prior Legislation: AB 165 (Knox) - 1999-00, currently in
Senate Appropriations
AB 115 (Maddox) - 1999-00, held in Assembly
Appropriations
SB 11 (Brulte) - 1997-98, held in Senate
Appropriations
AB 1584 (Prenter) - 1997-98 - Chapter 289,
Statutes of 1997
SB 366 (Rogers) - 1995-96 - Chapter 704,
Statutes of 1996
AB 3229 (Brulte) - 1995-96 - Chapter 134,
Statutes of 1996
Support: California State Association of Counties;
California State Sheriffs' Association; California
District Attorneys Association
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 2
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ("COPS")
PROGRAM BE EXTENDED FOR FIVE MORE YEARS, UNTIL JULY 1,
2005?
CONTINUE
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE EXTEND ITS DECLARED INTENT TO APPROPRIATE AT
LEAST $100 MILLION ANNUALLY TO THE COPS PROGRAM?
SHOULD LOCAL AGENCIES BE REQUIRED TO SPEND COPS FUNDS BY A GIVEN
DATE OR REMIT UNSPENT MONEYS TO THE CONTROLLER?
SHOULD LOCAL AGENCIES FORFEIT COPS FUNDING IF THEY FAIL TO SUBMIT
REQUIRED DATA OR FAIL TO SPEND FUNDS RECEIVED IN THE PRIOR FISCAL
YEAR?
PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this bill is to extend the Citizens
Option for Public Safety ("COPS") program for five more
years, until July 1, 2005, and to declare the Legislature's
intent to appropriate at least $100 million annually to the
COPS program during this period. In addition, this bill
imposes on cities and counties new deadlines, requirements,
and penalties related to the COPS program spending and
reporting.
Existing law provides that counties, cities, and special
districts may receive money to supplement law enforcement
resources, based on population, through the Citizens Option
for Public Safety ("COPS") program. (Government Code
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 3
section 30061 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the COPS program will become
inoperative on July 1, 2000, with its enabling legislation
repealed on January 1, 2001, unless a later enacted statute
extends the program. (Government Code section 30064.1)
Existing law declares the Legislature's intent to
appropriate at least $100 million for the COPS program in
the 1998-99 and 1999-00 fiscal years. (Government Code
section 30064.1)
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) to
receive COPS program disbursements. Existing law requires
that moneys from these funds be allocated to local agencies
to be used primarily for frontline law enforcement, but
also for criminal prosecutions and jail construction and
operation. (Government Code section 30061)
Existing law establishes in each county a Supplemental Law
Enforcement Oversight Committee (SLEOC). In each fiscal
year, county auditors and city treasurers are required to
file with their SLEOC reports detailing allocations of COPS
program funds. These reports are then to be summarized and
forwarded to the State Controller. Existing law does not
provide any penalties for failure to comply with these
reporting requirements. (Government Code sections
30063-30064)
This bill extends operation of the COPS program through
July 1, 2005, with its enabling legislation to be repealed
on January 1, 2006.
This bill declares that it is the intent of the Legislature
to appropriate at least $100 million annually through
fiscal year 2004-05 to fund the COPS program.
This bill requires local agencies to spend COPS funds
received in a given fiscal year by June 30 of the following
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 4
fiscal year or to remit unspent monies to the Controller
for deposit into the General Fund.
This bill requires that counties and cities shall forfeit
their COPS allocations for the subsequent fiscal year if
they fail to submit required data on program expenditures
in a timely manner.
COMMENTS
1. History and Existing Structure of the COPS Program
The Legislature created the COPS program in 1996 with the
passage of AB 3229 (Brulte). The legislative framework for
this program can now be found at Government Code sections
30061 through 30065. Statutory authorization for the
program expires on July 1, 2000, the end of the
current-fiscal year.
Under the COPS program, counties and cities are allocated
state funds, based solely on population, to supplement
local law enforcement. The Legislature has provided $100
million for the program each year since 1996-97, for a
total of $400 million through the current year. Under the
terms of Government Code section 30061, the yearly
disbursements of COPS funds are allocated as follows:
75 percent to cities and counties for front line
law enforcement.
12.5 percent to district attorneys for criminal
prosecution.
12.5 percent to sheriffs for county jail
construction and operations.
Under Government Code section 30063, cities and counties
are required to report to the Controller on their use of
COPS funds. However, no penalty currently exists to
enforce compliance with this minimal reporting requirement,
nor is there any method by which to assess the
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 5
effectiveness of the COPS program. In essence, the program
is largely an unrestricted grant for local law enforcement
agencies.
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 6
2. Should the COPS Program be Extended?
The COPS program has been in operation for four years and
has provided $400 million in funds to local law enforcement
agencies. Even so, there is little information available
about the program's impact or effectiveness. Moreover, the
program's structure has been critiqued by the Legislative
Analyst's Office for its lack of focus, accountability, and
oversight.
This bill extends the program for five more years, stating
the Legislature's intent to appropriate at least $100
million a year during this period. However, it makes few
changes to the program's overall scheme. Its one
substantial change is to provide for an increased level of
accountability by penalizing counties and cities that fail
to meet the program's minimal reporting and spending
requirements.
At this juncture, the Legislature may wish to decide
whether the COPS program should be extended at all, and if
so, for how long. If the COPS program is to be extended,
then the Legislature might consider changes to increase its
effectiveness and to improve oversight and accountability.
(See Comment 3 below.)
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE EXTEND THE COPS PROGRAM? FOR HOW
LONG?
IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES EXTEND THE COPS PROGRAM, SHOULD IT
MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM'S EFFECTIVENESS,
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OVERSIGHT?
3. Is There Sufficient Accountability and Oversight in the
COPS Program?
The Legislative Analysts Office has criticized the COPS
program for its lack of accountability and oversight. In
its analysis of the Governor's 2000-01 budget proposal, the
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 7
LAO wrote as follows:
Lack of Accountability. Currently, COPS monies are an
entitlement in that jurisdictions are not required to
meet any conditions in order to receive their
allocation. Although the enabling legislation did
establish minimal reporting requirements, no penalty
exists for lack of compliance. The absence of a clear
accountability mechanism has resulted in many
jurisdictions reporting their COPS expenditures
inaccurately or not at all.
Lack of State Oversight. Under the current reporting
procedures, jurisdictions are required to submit an
annual report to the State Controller detailing the
allocation and expenditure of COPS monies. The county
auditor and city treasurer of each jurisdiction are
responsible for recording monthly expenditures and the
State Controller only reviews the annual report for
minimal reporting compliance. There is no requirement
for the state to ensure that jurisdictions are using
the COPS funds in the manner which meets program
objectives.
LAO has recommended an increase in accountability and
oversight, writing in the budget analysis: "We think that
one way to accomplish this would be to require
jurisdictions to file expenditure reports, as was intended
by Chapter 289 [SB 1584/1997], as a condition of receiving
the funds. In our view, this would not be an additional
administrative burden on any jurisdiction."
SB 1936 is a step in this direction. It requires a county
or city that fails to submit required data on COPS spending
to forfeit its allocation for the subsequent fiscal year.
The bill thus provides a penalty for failures to report.
There are currently are no such consequences.
The question may remain, however, whether this enforcement
mechanism is enough, or whether even greater accountability
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 8
should be required. For instance, the forfeiture of future
proceeds may ensure timely reporting, but it does not
ensure quality reporting. It is not currently required
that local COPS reports be accurate, thorough, or detailed.
In fact, the reports must only state whether funds are
being spent on personnel or equipment. As LAO points out,
the reports contain no detailed information that could be
used to determine whether COPS funds are being used for
their intended purposes, or to establish statewide spending
trends by law enforcement.
This suggests that COPS reporting may need to be further
enhanced and enforced. If more detailed reporting was
required, this too could be linked to receipt of future
COPS allocations. Jurisdictions that failed to submit
complete, accurate, and timely reports could be penalized
with forfeiture.
SHOULD MORE DETAILED, ACCURATE, AND THOROUGH REPORTING BE
REQUIRED FOR THE COPS PROGRAM?
In addition, SB 1936 provides that counties and cities that
fail to expend COPS funds by the end of the fiscal year
following receipt must remit the money to the Controller to
be deposited into the General Fund. Currently unspent
monies remain with the local jurisdictions. There is no
requirement that the monies be spent in a given time
period.
This provision of SB 1936 may thus prevent jurisdictions
from simply leaving funds unspent or accumulating them for
future expenditures. However, it may also serve to
encourage law enforcement agencies to engage in wasteful or
unnecessary spending. This raises the question of whether
it might be better to allow jurisdictions to keep unspent
funds and apply them to future expenses meeting the
objectives of the COPS program.
SHOULD CITIES AND COUNTIES BE REQUIRED TO REMIT UNSPENT
FUNDS?
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 9
4. Is There a Need for Greater Evaluation of the COPS
Program's Effectiveness and Impact?
There is currently no good way to assess the effectiveness
or impact of the COPS program. Local beneficiaries of COPS
funds are not required to evaluate their efforts or measure
their success. In its budget analysis, LAO wrote:
"Although the objective of the COPS program - to increase
the overall funds for law enforcement services - is broad,
agencies should still be able to measure the impact of
their specific COPS expenditure on public safety. For
example, in the annual report, an agency should be able to
discuss the impact of an additional officer or a new piece
of equipment on public safety."
The Legislature might consider requiring local agencies to
report on the impact of the COPS program in their
jurisdictions. In addition, the more detailed reporting
requirements, as discussed in the previous comment, could
allow for better assessment of the statewide impact of the
COPS program.
SHOULD LOCAL AGENCIES BE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE IMPACT
OF THE COPS PROGRAM?
SHOULD MORE DETAILED REPORTING BE REQUIRED TO BETTER ASSESS
THE PROGRAM'S STATEWIDE IMPACT?
5. Is More Precise Targeting Necessary to Achieve the
Goals of the COPS Program?
In its 2000-01 budget analysis, LAO suggests that the COPS
program's allocation of funds based on population may not
be the most effective means of improving public safety:
[P]opulation is not the most important determinant of
crime rates. For example, a small jurisdiction in a
rural area is likely to have a lower crime rate and
different law enforcement needs than a jurisdiction of
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 10
equal size that is part of an urban metropolitan area.
Targeting law enforcement funds based on a
combination of factors, such as population, crime
rate, numbers of at-risk individuals, and economic
demographics is more likely to result in increased
public safety than the current distribution structure.
LAO also recommends that the Legislature adopt some
alternative-funding scheme:
[W]e suggest that, at a minimum, the Legislature
modify the allocation formula so that the money is
better targeted to those jurisdictions with the most
significant crime problems. This could be
accomplished in a number of ways. For example,
funding could be distributed so that all jurisdictions
receive a minimum base funding level, regardless of
population, with the remainder of the COPS monies
allocated based on a formula that takes account of the
relative crime problems across the state, such as each
jurisdiction's average crime rate over a given period
of time. An alternative approach would not provide a
minimum base funding level. Rather, a portion of the
total COPS fund could be distributed on a population
basis and the remaining portion distributed based on
each jurisdiction's average crime rate over a given
period of time.
Under the current COPS setup, affluent cities such as
Beverly Hills or Palo Alto could receive an equivalent
allocation of funds as a city of the same size that has a
much higher crime rate but a fraction of the law
enforcement resources. As LAO points out, a funding
approach that takes into account relevant factors such as
crime rates and financial need could prove much more
appropriate and effective. The Legislature may therefore
want to consider redesigning the allocation formula at this
time.
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 11
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE MODIFY THE COPS ALLOCATION FORMULA
SO THAT MONEY IS BETTER TARGETED TO THOSE JURISDICTIONS
WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CRIME PROBLEMS?
6. Should the Definition of "Front Line Law Enforcement"
be Amended?
The enabling legislation for the COPS program requires that
75 percent of the program's funds be provided to counties
for "front line law enforcement services" and to cities for
"front line municipal police services" but defines neither
phrase. (Government Code section 30061)
Last year in this Committee, an amendment was added to AB
165 (Knox) that amended the meaning of front line law
enforcement with regard to the COPS program, as follows:
For the purposes of this chapter front line law
enforcement services include antigang, community crime
prevention, and juvenile violence prevention programs.
SHOULD THE TERMS "FRONT LINE" LAW ENFORCEMENT BE AMENDED
CONSISTENT WITH AB 165? SHOULD THE TERMS "INCLUDE BUT ARE
NOT LIMITED TO" BE ADDED TO THIS BILL?
7. Governor's Proposed COPS Funding in 2000-01 State
Budget
(More)
SB 1936 (Schiff)
Page 12
The Governor's 2000-01 State Budget proposes spending
$121.3 million to fund the COPS program. This augmentation
is meant to provide a minimum $100,000 allocation to all
agencies, regardless of size, to encourage the hiring of
additional police officers. (The Governor's COPS proposal
is being heard by the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 4
today, April 25, 2000.)
8. Related Legislation
Several other bills that deal with funding and extension of
the COPS program are now being considered. These are as
follows:
AB 165 (Knox), currently in Senate Appropriations. This
bill leaves the current expiration of the COPS program
untouched through its current statutory limit and would
state the Legislature's intent to provide at least $100
million annually through the current fiscal year. In
addition, it further defines "front line law enforcement
services" and penalizes local agencies that misuse COPS
funds.
SB 1605 (Poochigian), set to be heard by this Committee
today (April 25, 2000.) This bill would extend the COPS
program indefinitely and state the Legislature's intent
to provide $250 million per year.
SB 1753 (Brulte), set to be heard by this Committee today
(April 25, 2000). This bill would appropriate $180
annually for law enforcement technology grants and
technology-related acquisitions to enhance public safety.
These funds would be deposited into the same accounts at
the county level-the Supplemental Law Enforcement
Services Funds (SLESF)-as are the COPS program funds.
***************