[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES OFFICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-102 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California Virginia
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TED POE, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JUDY CHU, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina TED DEUTCH, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARK AMODEI, Nevada MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JARED POLIS, Colorado
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........ 3
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Bernard K. Melekian, Director, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 2
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Report from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS)......................................................... 36
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Bernard K.
Melekian, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, U.S. Department of Justice........................... 84
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES OFFICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy
presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Adams, Conyers, Scott,
Jackson Lee, Pierluisi, Chu, and Polis.
Staff present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Subcommittee
Chief Counsel; Sheila Schreiber, Counsel; Harold Damelin,
Counsel; Sarah Allen, Counsel, Arthur Radford Baker, Counsel;
Lindsay Hamilton, Clerk; (Minority) Aaron Hiller, Counsel, Joe
Graupenberger, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff
Member.
Mr. Gowdy. Good Morning. This is the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Welcome to an oversight
hearing on the United States Department of Justice Community
Oriented Policing Services Office. The Subcommittee will come
to order.
Welcome to today's oversight hearing. I would like to
especially thank and welcome Director Melekian. Have I
pronounced your name correctly? And thank you for joining us
today.
I am also joined by my distinguished colleague from
Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby
Scott.
I am also joined by the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, former Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers,
from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. Top of the morning.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico. Welcome to all.
I am going to enter into the record, hopefully without
objection, the opening statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Today's hearing examines the grant programs administered by the
Community Oriented Policing Services Office, known as the COPS Office,
at the U.S. Department of Justice. Throughout the early 1990s, national
violent crime rates skyrocketed. In response to this problem, Congress
established the COPS Program in 1994 and initially funded it with
nearly $9 billion dollars between 1995 and 2000. DOJ also created the
COPS Office to distribute and monitor these federal funds.
The goal of the COPS hiring program was to place 100,000 additional
police officers engaged in so-called ``community policing'' on the
streets by the end of 2000. Whether this goal of an additional 100,000
officers was ever met is a matter of dispute. And, even more
importantly, there is strong disagreement over whether the COPS hiring
program has been effective in reducing violent crime.
Despite spending billions of dollars on the program since its
inception, the Government Accountability Office has estimated that the
COPS hiring program is only responsible for a 1.3 percent decline in
overall crime rates between 1993 and 2000. This is simply not a good
return on our investment.
During the mid-2000s, as national crime rates continued to plummet,
Congress stopped funding the COPS hiring program entirely in 2006 and
2007 and appropriated just $20 million for the program in 2008. And the
crime rates continued their decline.
However, in 2009, as part of the Administration's economic stimulus
plan, Congress appropriated $1 billion for COPS hiring grants in the
Recovery Act with virtually no strings attached. Congress waived any
matching requirement and the COPS Office allowed the funds to be used
to pay the salaries of existing officers rather than hire new ones.
This wasn't a crime fighting program--it was a jobs program.
The bloated funding continues. For Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012,
Congress appropriated an additional $700 million for COPS hiring
grants. And now President Obama has requested a staggering $4.25
BILLION in COPS funds for Fiscal Year 2013. This, despite the fact that
crime rates are at their lowest in 30 years, despite concerns raised by
GAO and the Inspector General about the administration of these grants,
and despite the fact that some recipients are exploiting this program
to supplant rather than support the hiring of new officers.
It is clear to me that the purpose of the program has shifted from
addressing violent crime nationwide to subsidizing state and local law
enforcement agencies with budget problems. The responsibility to fund
and manage routine state and local law enforcement efforts has been and
should remain with the state and local governments.
This program was intended to address an acute crime problem that no
longer exists and has now become a program to bail out state and local
governments that made fiscally irresponsible decisions.
The City of San Francisco began a program in 2008 that allowed
police officers to retire at age 55 and then be rehired by the police
department. Once rehired, these officers were then entitled to
receive--at the same time--both a full salary, which could be upwards
of six figures, and retirement payments, which were deposited in a tax-
deferred account that guaranteed a 4% return. Upon leaving the
department for the second time, the officers received the so-called
retirement payments that had accrued as a lump sum.
In many cases, police officers left their second tours of duty with
lump sums in the mid-six figures. A comptroller's report found that
this outrageous program is expected to cost the city an additional $52
million to re-hire retired officers rather than new recruits. And yet,
the COPS Office awarded San Francisco hiring grants worth over $16
million in 2009 alone.
In these difficult economic times, when the federal government must
drastically reduce its spending, we simply cannot continue to spend
money without verifying that funds are being used as effectively and
efficiently as possible, and only for the purpose Congress intends.
I welcome the Director of the COPS Office, Bernard Melekian and
look forward to your testimony today.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. And with that, we will recognize the gentleman
from Virginia for his opening statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for my
voice, but it is actually getting better.
I would like to welcome Director Melekian in here today to
discuss the important role of the COPS Office in making us
safer in this country. The COPS program awards grants to state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States, so they can hire and train law enforcement
officers to participate in community policing, purchase and
deploy new crime fighting technologies, and develop and test
new and innovative policing strategies.
The COPS Office was instituted not only with the goal of
hiring an additional 100,000 police officers, but also to
promote community policing. Community policing is a model of
police work involving a partnership between the police and the
local residents, which expands the focus of the police from
arrests, to intervention and prevention problem-solving.
This is a shift from deploying police officers and patrol
cars to randomly cruise the streets and to answer calls for
assistance to deploying them on the street and encouraging them
to establish ongoing relationships with residents.
This is often described as returning to a model of cops on
the beat, which is when officers get to know the residents on
their beat and thereby better understand the community's crime
problems and broader needs.
Of course, the better relationships that police officers
have with the community, the more likely it is that residents
will share important information with police, and obviously
assist in investigations. In this model of policing, officers
have more discretion and can go beyond making arrests, to
analyzing problems and responding to them with community
cooperation. In this way, local law enforcement officers are
more effective in protecting citizens because they prevent
crimes from occurring in the first place, save taxpayers money,
because of all of the associated savings related to
investigation, prosecution, and incarceration for crimes not
committed.
I believe that the COPS program has been a success and a
model on how smarter, proactive strategies for fighting crime
are superior to strategies that simply react to crime and cost
more in terms of victimization and taxpayers' money.
So, I look forward to the discussion today about how the
COPS Office is implementing this important program, and ways in
which we may be able to better strengthen it, and make it even
more capable of carrying out its important role.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I would now recognize the
gentleman from Michigan, if he would like to take the
opportunity for an opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, and Members of the
Committee. We all join in welcoming Bernard Melekian, the
Director of Community Oriented Police Services.
Just two things to add to what Ranking Member Scott has
already said. The first is that from my point of view, the COPS
program is one of the most successful ever produced by the
Judiciary Committee. And I would like to try to show why this
program is money well spent and what we need to do to reaffirm
our commitment to providing assistance to local law enforcement
in this country.
First of all, the COPS program creates jobs. It started off
under Clinton. It has funded more than 123,000 state and local
officers in communities across the country. Now, some
jurisdictions are actually laying off police officers, but the
COPS program makes us safer, and I fully support it. And I
think the case will be made very clearly here this morning.
In fact, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said, and I
quote, ``The COPS program has been one of the most successful
programs that we have ever worked with.''
Now in addition, yesterday I have introduced H.R. 4098, of
which the director has been made aware, and called the Shield
Our Streets Act, to provide specific funding for places that
have particularly high crime areas, like, for example, Highland
Park, Michigan, whose lighting systems have been cut off
because of their financial distress, and the safety issues
become paramount there.
And so I welcome you to the Committee again, and we look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
It is now my pleasure to introduce today's witness. Mr.
Bernard Melekian was selected as the Director of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services in October 2009. He has 36
years of local law enforcement experience, including serving as
the chief of police for the City of Pasadena for 13 years. He
also served with the Santa Monica Police Department for 23
years, where he was awarded the Medal of Valor in 1978 and the
Medal of Courage in 1980.
Mr. Melekian served in the United States Army from 1967 to
1970. As a member of the United States Coast Guard Reserve, he
was called to active duty in 1991, during Operation Desert
Storm, and served in Saudi Arabia. Director Melekian served a
second tour of active duty in 2003, when he served for 8 months
in the Pacific. He retired from the Coast Guard Reserves in
2009, after 26 years of service.
Director Melekian holds a bachelor's degree in American
history and a master's degree in public administration, both
from California State University North Ridge. He is a graduate
of the 150th session of the FBI National Academy, and the 20th
class of the California Command College.
Director Melekian's written statement will be entered into
the record in its entirety.
I would ask that you summarize your testimony, to the
extent you can, in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within
the time parameters there is a lighting system, which you are
probably familiar with. The colors mean the same thing they
mean in everyday life. Green means go, yellow means speed up,
and hope there is not a police officer around, and red means
stop.
I now recognize Director Melekian. And welcome.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BERNARD K. MELEKIAN, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Mr. Melekian. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity today to discuss the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS. I would like
to discuss with you our fiscal year 2013 budget request, our
management and oversight of valuable Federal resources, the
impact of the current economy on local law enforcement, and why
the COPS Office is just as important today as when it was
founded.
The mission of the COPS Office is to advance public safety
through community policing. Community policing is best defined
as building partnerships to solve community problems. The
community policing philosophy has served as the foundation for
successful law enforcement practices from Houston, Texas, where
police officers mentor at-risk youth, to Allentown,
Pennsylvania, where community policing officers will be hired
to focus on campus rape reduction, to Racine, Wisconsin, where
officers buy homes in high crime neighborhoods, use those homes
as substations to reduce crime, and ultimately resell the homes
to needy families.
Community policing in both practice and philosophy is an
effective solution to addressing public safety. Findings from
the 2005 GAO report demonstrated that COPS funds increase
community policing capacity, and were a contributing factor to
the reduction of crime in the 1990's.
I would like briefly to discuss the President's budget
request for the COPS Office, and our oversight and
accountability measures regarding taxpayer dollars appropriated
to us.
The budget requests approximately $290 million for the COPS
Office, including $257 million for hiring programs. These funds
will be focused on hiring military veterans as law enforcement
officers, providing an opportunity to support those who are
returning home from their tours of active duty.
We are committed to operating our office in the most
efficient way possible, while continuing to advance public
safety. We have made it a top priority to minimize our
operational costs. In 2011, we transferred our IT
infrastructure to a consolidated DOJ system, saving
approximately $5 million over the next 5 years. We have also
curbed expenditures on supplies, materials, travel, training,
awards, and overtime.
In light of the recent OIG findings on conferences, we
issued new instructions to grantees, and have trained our staff
on the new guidelines. As always, we seek to minimize
conference costs, and avoid either the fact or the appearance
of extravagant spending.
We also collaborate closely with the Office of Audit,
Assessment and Management to improve operating efficiency and
effectiveness. Since fiscal year 2007, we have recovered nearly
$4.7 million through the resolution of audits.
The COPS Office also closely monitors trends occurring in
law enforcement, and we have found that the loss of capacity
due to the economy is shocking. As shown in a report published
by our office, approximately 10,000 law enforcement positions
have been lost through layoffs, and local hiring freezes will
leave an additional 30,000 positions unfilled.
It is highly likely that the numbers that I am quoting to
you are low. In Camden, New Jersey, the city with one of the
highest crime rates in the country, nearly 50 percent of its
police department was laid off.
There are scores of other examples highlighted in this
report. I would ask your consent to include a copy in the
record of my testimony.
American law enforcement is changing, and I believe the
next few years will be a period of significant innovation.
Moving forward, the challenge will be to balance the public's
expectations and demands on police with the department's fiscal
capacity to perform its core mission.
Changes are likely to occur in four areas: Greater use of
civilians as both employees and volunteers, greater use of
technology, alternative delivery of non-emergency services, and
consolidation and regionalization.
Because of the history of our office, we have come to be
seen in some circles as only providing funds for hiring. That
is not and never has been our sole objective. We also provide a
broad range of robust technical assistance resources. We have
disseminated over 6 million training products and publications,
and have trained nearly 700,000 policing professionals and
community leaders.
We are partnering with the Bureau of Justice Assistance on
the Officer Safety and Wellness Group, which brings together
law enforcement leaders and criminal justice practitioners to
share their broad perspectives in this area.
COPS is making an impact at the local level. For example,
in Las Vegas, we are coordinating with the Civil Rights
Division to help develop a response to address community
concerns.
I want this office to become known as supporting innovation
as much as it is for hiring police officers.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melekian follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Melekian.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia
for his questioning.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Melekian, how do you guarantee
that the localities that need it most are more likely to get
funds? How do you guarantee that the localities that need the
money the most get the funds?
Mr. Melekian. The challenge for the office this year, and
actually for the last several years, has been, as I mentioned
previously, the impact of the economy has had devastating
results on local economy.
We use an evaluative system in our application process,
focusing on the fiscal health of the agencies, the crime rate
of the agencies, as well as the community policing plans, both
in terms of history and in terms of what they propose to do.
The harsh reality is that our funding, since 2009, has funded
roughly 14 percent, 8 percent, and 10 percent of the
applicants. In other words, 90 percent of those people who
apply simply don't get funded. My guess is that the need on the
next block of applicants, if we went straight down the list,
would be every bit as significant as those who got funded.
But we really focus on fiscal health and crime rate in an
effort to see that we can provide the greatest assistance
possible. One of the goals is to make sure that we maximize the
impact of those Federal dollars, given their limited
availability.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Could you say a word about what you
are doing for veterans?
Mr. Melekian. Yes. In the 2012 hiring program, we are
placing great emphasis on those men and women who have served
at least 180 days of active duty since 9/11 of 2001.
The first priority for any agency that is hiring new
officers, that is, not re-hiring someone who has lost their
job, will be focused on those returning veterans, with an idea
particularly toward catching those folks from Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Mr. Scott. Can you say a word about how community policing
helps solve crimes?
Mr. Melekian. Absolutely. I think, you know, sort of the
image of community policing in some cases is that it is simply
a feel-good program to build a relationship between the police
and the community.
I came to a community that was experiencing 20 to 25
homicides a year, and had done so for a long period of time.
Through a lot of community policing efforts, through support
from the COPS Office, through support from other Federal
agencies, we actually had 30 months of zero homicides. And we
never went back to double digits for, I think, 7 or 8 years.
The very definition of community policing, of building
relationships and solving problems, suggests that if the
officers on the beat know the people who live there, they are
much more likely to be able to obtain information and solve
crimes.
I think one of the best indicators, for example, of a
successful community policing program is any agency that has a
high rate of homicide clearances, where those clearances are
the result of investigation. It suggests that both the patrol
officers and the detectives have solid relationships in the
community to help them solve that crime.
Mr. Scott. And finally, do you coordinate grants with other
DOJ programs?
Mr. Melekian. We absolutely do. We work very closely both
with the Office of Justice Programs, particularly the Bureau of
Justice Assistance and the Office on Violence Against Women.
We are focused on making sure that we are not making awards
to the same grantees, that we are coordinating the purposes of
our grants. We recently began participating in the Coordinated
Tribal Assistance effort that is designed to streamline the
grant-making process for tribal police agencies.
We participate in and currently chair the High-Risk Grantee
Working Group, with an idea toward ensuring maximum efficiency
of all of DOJ's grant funds.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
who had a very distinguished career in law enforcement herself.
Mrs. Adams?
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, in the past, you have commented about how hard it
was to measure the effectiveness of the COPS program, you know,
the hiring program and all of that. What have done since being
in charge of the COPS programs to be able to measure the
outcomes and how it is working, the hiring programs?
Mr. Melekian. One of the most fundamental changes that we
have made in the COPS hiring process is to really sort of shift
the focus from the output measure, that is how many officers
did we hire, and begin to measure what did those officers
actually accomplish in the neighborhoods and communities where
they went.
To that end, in 2011, was the first time that grantees were
required to identify specific community problems that they
intended to address. And as part of our oversight and
monitoring efforts, we will be reviewing: (a) what they said
they were going to do to address the problem; and (b) what they
have actually done to make sure that those two are in
alignment.
In 2011, we allowed them to identify three community
problems. In 2012, we have actually focused that down to one
community problem with an eye, again, that we are not going to
solve their local budget problem, but what we can do is help to
solve a local policing problem.
Mrs. Adams. The COPS Office was established as separate
from DOJ's two other major grant-making components, the OVW and
OJP. And the DOJ IG has reported areas where the distinctions
have kind of caused some overlap and duplication in the grant
and administration. So, in what ways might consolidation of
these offices, particularly with regard to sharing systems,
procedures, and other administrative processes, yield greater
grant oversight and coordination to reduce cost?
Mr. Melekian. We are very conscious of making sure that we
are proper stewards of the Federal dollar, of the taxpayer
dollar. We view that as one of our core missions. We look very
closely, and I mentioned earlier some of the joint grant
working groups that we have to make sure that we are not sort
of blurring the line on that. That same report mentions that we
share a number of administrative systems with OJP. We have done
that for a number of years, again, in the pursuit of greater
efficiency, rather than standing alone.
Our greatest strength, I think, comes from the fact that we
are focused directly with the local law enforcement agency, we
deal directly with the local law enforcement agency, and our
mission to that end is unique within the Justice grant-making
components.
Mrs. Adams. How many people, including both DOJ employees
and contractors, currently work in the COPS Office? Like, how
many grant managers are responsible for COPS getting the
grants?
Mr. Melekian. If I understood the question, we currently
have 129 employees, Federal employees in the office. The hiring
freeze that has been in place since, for about----
Mrs. Adams. And they work in both?
Mr. Melekian. Pardon me?
Mrs. Adams. They are both DOJ and contractors that work
in----
Mr. Melekian. And I was going to say, and 70 contractors,
so a total of 209 persons.
Mrs. Adams. How many active grants does the COPS Office
currently manage?
Mr. Melekian. A little over 4,000.
Mrs. Adams. What is the average number of active grants
assigned to a grant manager?
Mr. Melekian. Roughly, 400.
Mrs. Adams. In 2009, DOJ Inspector General advised your
office of the potential overlap in purposes between the Byrne
JAG grants and the COPS hiring grants. Isn't it correct that a
Byrne JAG grant can be used for essentially any purpose allowed
by a COPS hiring grant?
Mr. Melekian. In theory, that is true. We have very little
evidence to indicate that that has happened. One of the things
that is distinctive about Byrne JAG is that it is generally a
block grant, whereas, again, the COPS grant goes directly to
the agency in question for a very specific purpose.
Additionally, our grants are for 3 years, and the grantee is
required to maintain that grant, at local expense, for an
additional 12 months. Byrne JAG doesn't carry that requirement.
Mrs. Adams. Have you gone back to look at, over the years,
these COPS hiring programs, how many police officers are still
there that were hired under these programs, and how long of a
tenure have they had?
Mr. Melekian. We have tried to look into that, and I can
try to get back to you on that. I don't have that number off
the top of my head. I can tell you, from a lot of years as a
police chief, that those positions were absorbed into the local
budget after the grant expired.
Mrs. Adams. And wouldn't it be fair to say that, although,
I agree that having more police officers is better than not
having enough, because I was one of them that called for help
from time to time, but also, I believe, it is the laws on the
books that keep the bad people behind the bars for the duration
of the time they should be behind the bars. That is a big help
for law enforcement, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Melekian. I certainly agree that that is a significant
factor. One of the focuses that we made when we were dealing
with the violence reduction program I talked about was to
identify the worst offenders, and make sure that our
enforcement efforts were focused at them, rather than sort of
at the community as a whole.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. I appreciate your
testimony, Director Melekian.
Let's turn to the Detroit police situation with me, would
you? They have had to restructure, and there is a struggle to
preserve maybe as much as 100 jobs in the police department.
Because of, I think, your program's existing grants, we were
able to preserve about 75 of those jobs, and I was wondering if
you happen to have enough information to discuss this
particular situation with me this morning?
Mr. Melekian. I do, and at least to some degree, and if it
exceeds my capacity sitting here in front of you this morning,
I will make sure that we get whatever information you require.
The challenge that Detroit is facing is playing out all over
this country. There are agencies, large and small, that are
laying off, losing positions, and struggling to figure out how
do they deliver police services in this economically challenged
environment.
Mr. Conyers. Have you or any of your people had any contact
with Police Chief of Detroit Ralph Godbee?
Mr. Melekian. Yes. I have spoken personally with Godbee on
several occasions, and he is a very active participant in the
national planning efforts that take place here in Washington
under the COPS umbrella.
Mr. Conyers. Is there any description you can give me of
what the state of affairs and your organization's relationship
to the Detroit police department are currently?
Mr. Melekian. I would describe the relationship with Chief
Godbee and with the members of his staff as extremely positive.
I know that he is struggling in a very creative fashion. He has
obviously got significant criminal justice issues to face. The
department is stretched in a number of ways, and the COPS
Office is striving to help the Detroit police department in the
ways that we are striving to help agencies all over the
country.
Mr. Conyers. Well, it is my understanding that you have
already helped us preserve roughly 75 Detroit police officers'
positions.
Mr. Melekian. Correct.
Mr. Conyers. Is that correct?
Mr. Melekian. It is, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Can we stay in touch, if not with you, with
somebody on your staff about this as we go along, because there
is no better way I can be of help to them than by working with
your organization to see that this gets balanced out. I am
going to be talking with him either today or tomorrow.
Mr. Melekian. Absolutely.
Mr. Conyers. Now, finally, since this is the authorizing
Subcommittee, and a part of the full Committee that deals with
this COPS program, what friendly advice would you give us as to
something you would like to see done differently, added, or
deleted, as we move forward with the legislative end of this
program?
Mr. Melekian. Probably is a longer answer than the clock
may permit, but I would hope that the Committee does review the
report that I made reference to, and really grasp what is
happening to local agencies, large and small, across the
country. I have never seen this loss of capacity. The things
that I can describe, you know, from my tenure as a police
chief, was, quite frankly, in an environment where the economy,
at worst, in bad years, meant holding static.
The devastation across the country, there's an NIJ report
that was issued recently that talked about the need to change
police business practices. I think we want to work much more
closely with this Committee on how we can maximize the use of
Federal dollars in the face of that reality.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much.
Could I get one additional minute, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Now, without being combative, do you have as good a
relationship with the Senate side as you do with the House side
in this program that you lead?
Mr. Melekian. I believe so.
Mr. Conyers. Wait a minute. You believe so? Well, that is a
pretty political response. So, I will see you after the
hearing.
Mr. Melekian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Director Melekian, you mentioned, I am going to go off
script here, which is something I have been advised repeatedly
not to do, but you mentioned homicide clearance rates as some
indicator of success. Do you consider a homicide cleared at the
time a warrant is signed, at the time the true bill is handed
down, or at the time you go to court and there is actually a
resolution of the case?
Mr. Melekian. Generally, it is when a suspect has been
affirmatively identified and enough evidence developed to take
that person into custody.
Mr. Gowdy. Even if there is a dismissal or a not guilty?
Mr. Melekian. If the dismissal is around an issue of, sort
of, technical deficiencies, either in the warrant or in the
arrest process, then I think you may have a training problem or
you may just have an evidentiary reality problem.
If, on the other hand, it is clear that somehow that
warrant was issued in error, and that that person was not
responsible, I would have a different response to that.
Mr. Gowdy. So, there is a difference between whether you
have got the right person, and you can't prove it, or you have
got the wrong person.
Mr. Melekian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. We had a pretty robust discussion
yesterday about the over-criminalization, in general, and then
what some would argue is an over-federalization of crime, in
general. And I am not going to ask you about that, but I think,
if I heard you correctly, and I tried to write it down, you
said, ``I can't solve budgets, but I can solve law enforcement
issues.''
Mr. Melekian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. And, first of all, I should have started by
saying, thank you for your service in law enforcement and to
our country. I think you are uniquely well positioned to answer
this question.
There are localities and states that have had to make some
pretty dramatic changes in the way that they fund other
programs, so they can meet what they consider to be the core
functions of state and local government, which in my judgment
would be public safety and education. So, are we postponing the
day of reckoning for those municipalities who are relying on
Federal funding?
Mr. Melekian. I don't believe so, and I say that because
most agencies, especially in this day and age, for example, the
COPS legislation, the agencies are not permitted to supplant
their local budgets. And we pay very close attention to that,
to make sure that that doesn't occur.
Mr. Gowdy. Have there been instances where you found that
it did occur?
Mr. Melekian. Very rarely. Over the last 16 years, I can
think of a handful of occasions, and those were dealt with.
But, the fact of the matter is that the agencies are reaching
out to the Federal Government. And when I first got here, in
2009, it was very clear that chiefs and sheriffs were
struggling to figure out what this new economic reality meant.
I think people have come to terms with that. They recognize
that neither the COPS Office nor any other Federal agency is
going to fix the challenges that they have.
But what they can do, if they are addressing a particular
problem, whether it is a school security issue, or traffic
management, or a specific type of crime problem, or whatever
their local problem is, we have tried to position ourselves to
where we can help them solve that problem, not necessarily
solve the totality of what they are doing. And I think in that
spirit it is unlikely that they are going to become dependent
on Federal dollars.
Mr. Gowdy. I am going to read you a quote from someone who
had a very distinguished career in local law enforcement. Tell
me if you recognize it. ``The COPS Office and the Federal
Government have poured billions of dollars into the advancement
of community policing. I believe as a practitioner that it has
made a difference,'' ellipsis, ``in quality of life, but if you
ask me to prove it, I am not sure I could.''
Do you know who said that?
Mr. Melekian. I don't, but I don't disagree with it.
Mr. Gowdy. It is a quote attributed to you.
Mr. Melekian. Okay. It sounds like something I would say.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gowdy. I am going to allow you to use the lowest
standard of proof that we have, preponderance. Can you prove it
now?
Mr. Melekian. I can prove it in the city that I worked in.
I can prove it in the sense of talking to individual chiefs and
sheriffs, as they tell me their stories about what they did.
And I can sort of prove it in a parable form, when I look back
at where this profession was 36 years ago when I came into it,
and where it is today.
In terms of proving it, when I said that, it was in terms
of proving it in an academic sense. And it was in the context
of a program that the COPS Office implemented, called CP-SAT,
with our 2011 budget, which was our first attempt, as far as I
know, the first attempt, to really try to measure the impact of
community policing on grantees. And they are required to do an
assessment, a self-assessment, that is a community self-
assessment, at the beginning of the grant period, and then
again at the end of the grant period, which in most cases is
going to be around 2013, 2014.
And our hope is that for the first time we will actually
have an academically rigorous measure. The GAO report in 2005
suggested that the COPS Office was making a difference, and
was, in fact, advancing community policing.
I don't know if I have answered your question.
Mr. Gowdy. I am out of time, but if Mr. Scott would allow
me one more question.
Mr. Scott. Without objection.
Mr. Gowdy. If you and I were working together and somebody
were described as high risk, that would send off certain
signals in our mind. Help me explain to the folks I work for
back home how high-risk grantees can continue in the program,
or can apply for additional grants. What does high risk mean to
you, and do they have a higher burden to overcome when it comes
to seeking new grants?
Mr. Melekian. The second part of your question is much
easier to answer. They do have a higher burden to overcome. It
means that in some process, and I think the term, the way you
started out, if you and I are working a radio car together, and
we say a person is high risk or a neighborhood is high risk,
that sort of is one context. The idea of a high-risk grantee
means that through any 1 of 19 identified factors, they have
demonstrated that they may be challenged with regards to how
they have implemented the grant.
And so, the result that I mentioned in my remarks about the
high-risk grant challenges group, it is a joint DOJ team effort
between all the DOJ grant-making efforts that look at each
component's listing of people that are on that list, why they
are on that list, and we make decisions about who gets
evaluated, who is going to get a site visit. But, in any event,
we are paying much closer attention to them than we would a
grantee who is not on that list.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Puerto
Rico, Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Director
Melekian, for your service and your testimony this morning.
I will use the bulk of my time to defend the program that
you administer, and then I will have a couple of specific
comments and questions.
As you know, the COPS Office was created as a result of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I was
attorney general of Puerto Rico at the time, and I lobbied hard
for this law. From where I stood, the need for this legislation
could not have been more evident. In the early 1990's, Puerto
Rico, like so many other U.S. jurisdictions, was suffering from
a wave of violent crime. In the 5-year period between 1989 and
1993, the number of homicides on the island more than doubled,
from about 460, to over 950. In 1994, there were nearly 1,000
homicides in Puerto Rico. Indeed, my own family was touched by
this violence.
Director, in your testimony you noted that as police chief
in Pasadena, you had to tell many parents that their child was
not coming home. For me, as for you, violent crime is not an
abstract problem. To the contrary, it is profoundly, intensely,
and undeniably personal. I believe that the most solemn duty of
our government, whether it be Federal, state or local, is to
safeguard its citizens. The COPS program is rooted in that
simple but powerful premise.
Thus, while this Subcommittee should ensure that the COPS
Office is effectively performing its mission to advance public
safety, it should not question the overriding importance of the
mission itself.
After the Crime Act was enacted, violent crime in Puerto
Rico began to fall. Between 1994 and 1999, the number of
homicides on the island was cut almost in half, to well under
600. Of course, the programs created by the Crime Act were not
the only factor behind this reduction in violence, but I do
believe that they were a major contributing factor. Since the
program's inception, over $160 million in COPS grants have been
awarded to law enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico. These
grants have put more than 3,500 new police officers on Puerto
Rico streets.
Nearly every one of our municipalities has benefited from
the grants. These statistics are heartening, but they do not
tell the whole story. The number of lives saved, the number of
crimes prevented, and the number of families spared the pain of
losing a loved one are beyond calculation.
However, as you, Director, and the Members of this
Subcommittee are well aware, violent crime in Puerto Rico, as
well as in the neighboring U.S. Virgin Islands, has been on the
rise again since year 2000, even as violent crime nationwide
has decreased substantially. In fact, the murder rate in both
Puerto Rico and the USVI is approximately six times the
national average, and nearly three times higher than any State.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to this
spike in violence, but perhaps the most important is
geopolitics. As the U.S. Government has increased resources
along the southwest border and provided substantial funding to
Mexico and Central American nations with the M?rida Initiative,
drug trafficking organizations have returned to familiar routes
through the Caribbean to get their products to market. And
according to some estimates, three-quarters of the murders in
Puerto Rico and the USVI are linked to the drug trade.
So, this leads me to a couple of comments and questions.
First, I appreciate that in determining the grants you are
providing, that you are taking into account crime rate in the
jurisdictions involved. That is very important. It has got to
be need-based. At the same time that you are also taking into
account the fiscal effort by the proponents or the grantees.
That is important.
Now, you mentioned that you not only hire cops, but also
you provide technical support. So in the little time remaining,
could you please expand on the kind of technical support you
could be giving to local jurisdictions, and then also the kind
of resources you have, how many people you have trained to give
this technical support, and how you go about it?
Mr. Melekian. In the life of the COPS Office, we have been
focused very significantly on the Island of Puerto Rico. Nearly
$170 million in COPS funding has gone directly to the Island.
We also participated in the Department of Justice working
group, which is a subcommittee of a White House working group.
Mr. Pierluisi. Mr. Chairman, would you give the witness two
additional minutes just to finish explaining what I asked him
to do?
Mr. Gowdy. The witness may finish answering Mr. Pierluisi's
question.
Mr. Melekian. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you so much.
Mr. Melekian. We work with the DOJ working group in Puerto
Rico, which is a subset of the White House working group on the
Island, and we are working with a number of Federal agencies on
dealing with the issues that you pointed out.
We also, through our community policing development, fund a
number of projects that may well be relevant to the issues that
you raise, not the least of which is the National Network of
Safe Communities, out of John Jay College, which right now is
about 51 jurisdictions that are attempting to sort of share
information on how they have addressed specific crime problems,
and what are best practices in policing.
We also have a separate project that is outsourced, in
effect, that evaluates the impact of significant policing
events. And I would be happy to work with your office and your
staff to see what other programs we have from the COPS Office
that is directly related to the issues you have raised.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu. Thank you.
Director Melekian, it is such a pleasure to have you here
today. I represent the San Gabriel Valley, which is east of Los
Angeles, in California. Of course, it has Pasadena in it. Your
dedicated service to the City of Pasadena as the police chief,
acting fire chief, and acting city manager is well noted. But
more specifically, your 36 years serving in local law
enforcement makes you so well suited to your current role. And
I so, again, appreciate your being here today.
You are also well known for the No More Dead Children
initiative. At one point, Pasadena had multiple years of 20 to
25 homicides per year, however, through the No More Dead
Children initiative, you reduced this dramatically, and you had
30 consecutive months of zero homicides.
Can you take a moment to tell the Committee about that
initiative, and what help, if any, the COPS Office provided you
to ensure that the program was a success?
Mr. Melekian. Yes, I am privileged to do that. That problem
was one of those seemingly intractable problems that we were
assured by everyone that knew anything that there was nothing
that you could do about it. But we sat down and with some
assistance from the COPS Office, with a commitment from the
community, with a commitment to community policing in a way
that ensured that individual officers had relationships with
individual people in the community, we embarked on a three-
track program of prevention, intervention and enforcement. And
because of the resources that we had, both locally and with the
assistance from the Federal Government, we didn't have to do
what a lot of jurisdictions end up doing. They know that
prevention is important. They know that intervention is
important. They know that enforcement is important. But a lot
of times they end up feeling like they have to make a choice.
For a whole variety of reasons, we didn't have to make that
choice. We focused on each of those aspects of dealing with
that particular problem. The enforcement effort was not ever
directed at a community as a whole. It was directed at specific
individuals. The intervention program was highlighted by the
creation of a first-offender program.
There is an enormous number of studies that point out that
if you can deal with kids who get arrested for the first time,
if you can deal with them in some positive and proactive way,
you can significantly impact crime with a very quick
turnaround.
And the prevention piece, quite frankly, was focused on
after school programs and on relationships with individual
officers. Because of the COPS Office funding, and some
additional resources that we had, because of some assistance
from other Federal law enforcement agencies, and because of
partnering with the community and with the school district, we
did in fact achieve the results that you described. I
calculated that, you know, over the life of the 10 years after
we implemented that program, that there was somewhere in the
neighborhood of 60 to 70 young people, mostly young people of
color, who had not been killed. You know, it is difficult to
measure that. It is almost impossible to measure that, but the
reality is that their lives count, and I think that that
program and the COPS program helped us do that.
Ms. Chu. Well, I truly want to commend you on that.
Switching gears, I want to talk for a moment about officer
safety, and the issue of gun violence and how it is affecting
them. It is of particular concern, when, according to the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, that last year
for the first time in 14 years, more officers died from
firearm-related incidents than traffic related incidents. And
it was 173 officers that lost their lives last year. And the
number of officers killed by firearms has now risen during each
of the past 3 years.
So, how is your office addressing officer deaths, and
working with local police departments in implementing
strategies to reverse this?
Mr. Melekian. The issue of officer safety and officer
wellness is one of the attorney general's priorities, and to
that end, the COPS Office and our sister agency, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, operate a working group, the Officer Safety
and Wellness Working Group. We meet with practitioners from the
field, with academics, and psychologists to really try to get a
handle on: (a) what the nature of the problem is; and (b) how
can we look at issues of training and technical assistance, how
can we do better at teaching tactics to try to address this
issue. It is a huge issue of concern obviously to me, and
certainly, it is a huge issue of concern to the attorney
general.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from California.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I assume, as part of your position,
you track nationally community policing programs. Is that
correct?
Mr. Melekian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Polis. And I wanted to ask specifically about, it is my
understanding that building the trust of the community is an
important part of community policing programs. Is that correct?
Mr. Melekian. Yes.
Mr. Polis. What impact have you seen from some of the
state-based efforts that have reduced the trust among our
immigrant community? Particularly, I would ask you about the
impact on community policing in Arizona and Alabama.
Mr. Melekian. One of the realities of community policing is
that, like everything else to do with policing, it is very
local. And so while very often the State issues, and
particularly around some of the immigration issues, certainly
impact that, the real challenge, the real test is the
relationship between the individual department and the people
in the individual community, as to whether or not that sort of
a broader issue is going to have a negative impact.
There is no question that those kind of discussions sort of
percolate right down to the local level, but a great many
chiefs and sheriffs have spent a lot of energy trying to offset
that.
I went to a lot of trouble, as the police chief, for
example, to make it clear--the city that I was in was over one-
third Hispanic. Concerns about immigration issues were
significant to them. We made it very clear what the police
department's policy was and that it wasn't going to change.
There are a number of ways that this operationalizes itself.
For example, drivers license checks, those kind of things. I
think it is a matter, really, of what is local policy and
what's being done on the local level.
Mr. Polis. And what about the impact of 287(g) programs
that empower the very same local officers and/or their
colleagues, who are trying to establish relationships in the
community, with the power to initiate deportation proceedings
and communications with ICE?
Mr. Melekian. Most of those, at least the ones I am
familiar with, occur at the county level in custodial settings.
I know that there are some agencies who have taken that on, you
know, taken a more proactive role than that. That's not,
certainly, part of a COPS Office program. It is not anything
that we're involved with, in terms of our funding. You know, it
is a hugely significant issue.
And one of the first trips that I made, when I became the
COPS director, was to the Southwest border, to meet with the
Southwest border sheriffs, and take a look at the issues that
they are dealing with. And each of them is responding to it,
really, kind of in response to what their local community
wants. But the programs that you're talking about are not
supported by the COPS Office.
Mr. Polis. And again, given that building trust in the
community is a critical part of community policing, would you
say that it might, in fact, cause a reason for distrust, if, in
fact, members of the community who are undocumented feel that
they might be deported by police officers?
Mr. Melekian. I certainly think it can have that effect, if
there's nothing going on to sort of offset it.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
The gentleman from Michigan asked to be recognized out of
order, and is.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
We have here a former attorney general, a former Federal
prosecutor, a former sheriff, and yourself. This is a
concentration of law enforcement experience that we don't
always get at these hearings. And I wanted to ask you about a
question that the Chairman mentioned in terms of his comments.
And that is the question of over-incarceration. We in this
country put more people in prisons for longer periods of time
than any other country on earth. Are you prepared to give me
your opinion about that now? Let me ask you to respond to that,
because it is a subject matter that is drawing increasing
attention on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Melekian. I think it is important topic for a number of
reasons. Not only the almost philosophical question of whether
too many people are being incarcerated, but what you are seeing
across the country now is an economic impact, requiring States
to reduce their prison populations, and sending those released
prisoners back to local communities, which may or may not be
prepared to absorb them.
One of the jurisdictions, for example, that we funded with
hiring funds last year was specifically one of the community
problems that they took on, was this issue of reentry, and how
to deal with those folks that are coming back and try to ensure
their success. The recidivism rate in California, and I don't
think California is unique from across the country, was roughly
70 percent, which means that whatever savings that were being
generated by releasing people from prison are, in effect,
negated, unless we can find some way to effectively deal with
them. So I think it is an important issue, and it is one the
COPS Office is very focused on.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Just as a point of clarification, I think I asked about
over-criminalization and over-federalization of crime. I don't
want any of my former colleagues to think that I am being
disingenuous in now being concerned with over-incarceration
since I have dedicated part of my life to making sure that
happens.
With that, on behalf of all of us we want to thank you for
your service in law enforcement.
Yes. The gentlelady from Florida would like to be
recognized out of order.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of quick things. I know that you said local
governments are struggling with their agencies, because of the
cost of what has been happening in the economy. Has it been
brought to your attention that some of the regulations that are
being passed on by the Federal Government to these cities and
counties, the costs of those regulations are causing them to
have to reduce in other areas, and that reduction is within the
public safety arena?
Mr. Melekian. I have not heard that directly, but I know
that there are concerns sort of in the aggregate about various
mandated costs of local government, which clearly spill over to
funding public safety.
Mrs. Adams. Would it surprise you that I was told by one
city that if they had to comply, the costs would cause them to
have to basically shut down their whole law enforcement agency?
Mr. Melekian. No, it wouldn't, because one of the phenomena
we are seeing from around the country is this issue of agencies
closing for a variety of reasons. In meetings with the National
Sheriffs Association, for example, they are very concerned
about the fact about the number of cities, particularly in the
western United States, that are simply closing their doors and
turning law enforcement responsibility back to the sheriff. In
other places we're dealing with, we're dealing with contracting
and other issues. So, that issue of police departments going
out of business for a variety of reasons is significant.
Mrs. Adams. And the regulation cost is one of those that
you have heard of, also.
Mr. Melekian. Not directly, but I am aware that that is a
concern.
Mrs. Adams. And the other thing you mentioned, real
quickly, you mentioned reentry programs. And since I was sent
to look at some reentry programs, because of my law enforcement
background, are you monitoring these programs, and how they are
conducted? Because one of the things that I saw at one of these
programs was the fact that the person who was out and going
through this reentry program had no job, but had a cell phone,
a new car, and lots of gold around his neck, and was receiving
lots of phone calls and text messages while he was being spoken
to during this meeting with the people who were overseeing his
reentry. Yet, he made one comment, which I thought was
interesting, about the fight in line wasn't his fault and
because he smacked that woman, really it was her fault. And
yet, they let him walk back out the door instead of maybe
having him reevaluated. Who has responsibility to oversee these
programs and ensure that the public is safe?
Mr. Melekian. We monitor the programs where we have
provided funding for, which, as I mentioned, at least, last
year, although I really expect that number to go up this year,
there was only one agency that selected reentry as a problem.
So we do monitor what they're doing, because we hear the same
stories that you do about that kind of thing.
Quite honestly, I think that the nature of reentry and how
it is being handled is casting a very wide net, and I think it
gets handled in different ways in different places. The impact,
particularly in California, is going to be significant, and it
will be interesting to see what the 2012 grant applications
look like this year, to see whether the number of agencies
requesting funding for reentry programs increases.
Mrs. Adams. And when you are looking at all the numbers as
you evaluate these programs, and where the funding is going for
these programs, are you also evaluating the reoffending numbers
and the crime rates as they appear, once these programs are in
place?
Mr. Melekian. We certainly try to coordinate with the
Bureau of Justice Assistance who tracks that.
Mrs. Adams. Could you let us know whether or not someone is
tracking that information and keeping it accurate?
Mr. Melekian. I will get back to you on that.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentlelady from Florida.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member.
I thank the witness for his presence, and also for his service
as a law enforcement officer. You may have come across, in your
experience, Chief Lee P. Brown, who served as head of the
Chiefs Association, serves as the police chief commissioner in
New York, Atlanta, and then we were fortunate to get him both
as a chief of police, but also as a mayor of the City of
Houston.
And he utilized something that I think is a vital tool, and
that is the community-oriented policing, which I, frankly,
believe the COPS program sort of modifies. It helps ensure that
there are law enforcement officers available.
So my first question is, probably you've answered it, but I
am a supporter of the COPS program, and my question to you is
the ability to truly work the COPS program within the budget
framework, or with additional cuts that may come to the
program, what dilemma would you be placed in?
Mr. Melekian. The dilemma, if that is what it is, is really
a recognizing of how do we help the police departments and the
sheriffs' departments across the country to sort of adjust to
this new reality that they are in, and that because, as I
mentioned earlier, under the current funding levels, 90 percent
of the agencies that apply for COPS grants are not getting
funded. And however we slice that pie up, 90 percent of those
agencies are not getting funded.
So, we have to look to our community policing development
program, and we have to look to our training and technical
assistance programs, to see if we can provide them assistance
other than the hiring of personnel.
I mentioned a couple of programs like the National Network
of Safe Cities. There are a number of these kind of efforts,
where different agencies are beginning the process of trying to
share information, share best practices about how they are
accommodating themselves to the new reality.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The COPS programs that are funded, I'll
say Houston, for example, that really wants this funding, we
are a big city, people call 911 in the middle of the night, how
does the COPS program help to ensure that emergency services
are continued, that those emergency responses are answered?
Mr. Melekian. We try to ensure that, particularly those
agencies, and Houston has been a grant recipient for 2 of the
last 3 years, because of the issues that you identified, our
focus is making sure that those officers, whatever the problem
was, whatever the community problem was that the jurisdiction
said it wanted to do, that we make sure that that is what they
are doing.
Our belief is, and there is a lot of research out there to
suggest, and I think it is going to get more interesting over
the next couple of years, that crime is actually very narrowly
focused to individuals and narrowly focused to place. And if we
can work with jurisdictions to help them utilize those COPS
resources, to sort of focus on both of those things, our hope
is that it will bring the crime rate down, and it will bring
the demand down on the 911 system.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think that we should encourage more
partnerships in theory and practice with the COPS program, and
a focus on community-oriented policing?
Mr. Melekian. I think community policing, particularly in
this environment, is going to become more critical and not less
critical. It was a different reality when, if you wanted to
have a school outreach program, if you wanted to do a foot
patrol, you simply added personnel, and whether those personnel
were funded by the Federal Government for some limited period
of time, or whether they were locally funded, you could do
that. In today's environment, you can't. You have to have a
stronger relationship with the business owners in the
neighborhood, with the residents in the neighborhood, with the
community groups in the neighborhood, and there has to be an
individual relationship about between the police and the
members of the community. That is community policing in its
essence, and that is what we are trying to drive.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I follow up with this question? I
introduced legislation dealing with bullying prevention, the
reauthorization of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. It is
not under your jurisdiction, but here is the question that I
have.
Many times parents in this tragic incident that happened in
the last 2 days will be baffled. Where were the police? Why
didn't we have someone there? Can you just, from policing
perspectives, speak to this idea that intervention, whether it
is community oriented policing, whether it is intervention, or
best practices, or preventing bullying, really helps in a
holistic idea of safety for the community?
Mr. Gowdy. You may answer the question, Director Melekian.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Melekian. Thank you, sir.
As I mentioned earlier, when I was describing my
experiences, I think there are the three parts, there are three
tracks of things that have to occur to have a successful
violence reduction program, and each one of them is tied to
community policing.
There needs to be an after-school program, so that kids
have something to do. It isn't just something to do. It is also
about forming a relationship and an impression of what a local
law enforcement officer is.
The intervention piece is the kid that gets in trouble for
the first time, but there are all kinds of studies that suggest
that there's only a small percentage of those kids that are
going to go on to cause a lot of trouble, if you can identify
them, and work with them. Places that have done them have had
great success.
And if your enforcement efforts can focus on individuals,
rather than broad neighborhoods, so that you don't fall into
the trap of widening the gap between local police and the
communities they serve, if you can manage to keep it on an
individual level, each one of those pieces is a critical
community policing piece that can contribute to violence
reduction. And I specifically include the issue of school
police in a positive constructive way in that discussion.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from Texas.
Director Melekian, again on behalf of all of us, we want to
thank you for your service to our country, for your service to
law enforcement, and your service in your current capacity.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witness, which we will forward and ask the witness to respond
as promptly as he can, so his answers may be made a part of the
record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Report from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Bernard K.
Melekian, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
U.S. Department of Justice
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]