PDA

View Full Version : Federal Money, and the Costs


PatriotnMore
07-30-2009, 11:06 AM
I am curious, I have been reading where funds are being made available from the federal gov, to LEA, what are the costs to the public in political issues, or financial dependency over long periods which will effect your agency and in the way it operates.

Or, is all this money simply given without any strings attached, or pressure applied to top leadership, including city leadership?

retired
07-30-2009, 1:32 PM
I can't answer the question, tho I'm sure the active members will chime in. My guess is there aren't any strings; they are probably indestructible titanium cables.:eek:;)

fullrearview
07-30-2009, 6:41 PM
I am curious, I have been reading where funds are being made available from the federal gov, to LEA, what are the costs to the public in political issues, or financial dependency over long periods which will effect your agency and in the way it operates.

Or, is all this money simply given without any strings attached, or pressure applied to top leadership, including city leadership?

I don't know but it sure makes me want to read Sheriff Mack's book.

sheriffmack.com

I know that less than 5% of the money went to Sheriff's departments, a big concern of mine.Without knowing more, I think there is some political favors thus far.

I do know one of the stipulations was 50% of the money had to go to rural departments, but other wise a few big departments missed out and they needed it now(long run I feel its best they didn't get it)

tyrist
07-30-2009, 11:02 PM
It's basically used to fun specialized units which assist federal agencies. It is also used for homeland security equipment and training. I get WMD training every year on federal money. They give me a really nice classroom supplies and color printouts that collect dust in my closet. Whatever company is supplying hi liters, binders, cds, and pens must be making a killing.

masameet
07-31-2009, 12:58 AM
The Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2064021.html) published some good info on the federal stimulus grants to LEA. I've posted some of the major points:

* The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) administered the grants and received applications worth $8.3 billion from 7,000 agencies. Of the
$1 billion handed out, half had to go to jurisdictions with fewer than 150,000 people

* More than 6,000 cities nationwide were passed over for funding, including New York, Phoenix, Seattle, Houston and Pittsburgh

* Of the 4,699 policing jobs being paid for, only 270 went to sheriff's departments. Of the 1,046 police agencies receiving funds, only 60 were sheriff's departments

* In California, sheriff's departments in San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Tulare and Riverside counties got the grants

* Funding was handed out on a formula based on the finances and crime rates of the jurisdictions that applied

* Another round of federal aid for police probably won't be rolled out until the federal government's 2010 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1

PatriotnMore
07-31-2009, 9:30 AM
What I am interested in knowing is, are there political expectations, compromises, or loss of/altering of, policy decisions from accepting any of these federal monies.

Does any federal entity now have financial and political clout in the decision making process, by making these funds available. In addition, will departments/agencies become so dependent upon these funds, that a compromise in operations or decisions becomes a problem?

Or, is this simply, monies are made available with no strings attached?

fullrearview
07-31-2009, 12:05 PM
What I am interested in knowing is, are there political expectations, compromises, or loss of/altering of, policy decisions from accepting any of these federal monies.

Does any federal entity now have financial and political clout in the decision making process, by making these funds available. In addition, will departments/agencies become so dependent upon these funds, that a compromise in operations or decisions becomes a problem?

Or, is this simply, monies are made available with no strings attached?

Of course there is money attached. Why do you think only 270 are deputy sheriff posistions? Obama wants a civialian security force, and he recently taked about the FEDs being more involved in police practices.

PatriotnMore
07-31-2009, 1:11 PM
If what you say is true, LEO's better start talking amongst themselves as to what implications this is going to have on them, their LEA policies, what types of LEO's they will be looking to hire, the types they will be looking to let go, and a whole host of issues.

Why is it I am not hearing much about this from the rank and file? This has the potential for serious political consequences and changes. Creating LEA's which become dependent on federal monies, is a dangerous political road.

Of course there is money attached. Why do you think only 270 are deputy sheriff posistions? Obama wants a civialian security force, and he recently taked about the FEDs being more involved in police practices.

fullrearview
07-31-2009, 3:30 PM
If what you say is true, LEO's better start talking amongst themselves as to what implications this is going to have on them, their LEA policies, what types of LEO's they will be looking to hire, the types they will be looking to let go, and a whole host of issues.

Why is it I am not hearing much about this from the rank and file? This has the potential for serious political consequences and changes. Creating LEA's which become dependent on federal monies, is a dangerous political road.

I am not saying that I am right or wrong but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
This is a scary time for LE!! Unfortunately, there is SO much going on right now it is hard to focus on everything, and people see money, no matter where it comes from, as being good.
I am not sure of the strings attached, but I am sure there are some.

masameet
08-01-2009, 12:43 AM
I am not saying that I am right or wrong but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
This is a scary time for LE!! Unfortunately, there is SO much going on right now it is hard to focus on everything, and people see money, no matter where it comes from, as being good.
I am not sure of the strings attached, but I am sure there are some.

If you don't know, then why bother posting your fears? Esp. in the LEO forum. You are simply showing yourself to be a paranoiac, which unfortunately seems to be the one common denominator among male Calgunners.

Honestly the LEO forum should not be a place for foolish conjecture by either LEOs or non-LEOs.

masameet
08-01-2009, 12:56 AM
So if you guys had done some internet digging, you would have found the site that I mentioned earlier: The U.S. Dept. of Justice COPS Office (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=34). By clicking on "Managing COPS Grants," you would have found the federal guidelines every LEA that receives a stimulus grant via the COPS Hiring Recovery Program must adhere to.

... Federal guidelines establish the requirements associated with COPS grants, and it is the responsibility of the COPS Office to ensure that those guidelines are met. The following sections outline the various ways in which the COPS Office meets its responsibilities, as well as the tools COPS has to help recipients manage their grants most effectively. The COPS Office works closely with the Office of the Comptroller (OC) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to make sure each grantee is able to make good on the responsibilities it accepts with a COPS grant.

Please be advised that the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. ยง 1913) was recently amended to expand the penalties for restrictions against using Federal funds for lobbying activity. The amendment provides that Federal funds cannot be used, directly or indirectly, to influence a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation. The amendment makes the anti-lobbying restrictions enforceable via large civil penalties, with fines between $10,000 and $100,000 per each occurrence. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently considering amending the OMB cost circulars and the common rule (codified at 28 C.F.R. Part 69 for DOJ grantees) to reflect the amendment.

After these paragraphs are one hyperlinked site followed by PDFed hyperlinks of the actual federal guidelines. Didn't bother reading the PDFs but you certainly can.

Congress authorized this COPS funding on Obama's request. He's doing a heckuva lot more than Bush 1 or 2 ever did for our nation's LEA and communities. Most likely after Oct. 1, another round of funding will be available.

PatriotnMore
08-01-2009, 9:31 AM
It is not paranoid to discuss issues which have relevant implications for corruption and misuse of public funds, what is inexcusable is to put ones head in the sand, and pretend crime, corruption, and abuse of power don't exist.

This is the LEO section of the forum, and was hoping to engage in adult dialog as to the how's and why's on the subject. Unfortunately, you would rather drag this down to the level of, tin foil hat wears.

The COPS program from my understanding, has been around since 1994,http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?item=44#1994
which makes it quite a bit older than your claim of "Congress authorized this COPS funding on Obama's request. " Which in turn makes me suspicious of the content and reasons for your entire post(s) other than to provide some information, and then turn it into an opportunity to vent your displeasure for starting a topic you don't care for.

Also, as I have looked around since posting the original question, I have been reading in other forums, the exact subject is being discussed, which include legal forums.

Moderators, forgive me if my post comes off as a bit harsh, it's not my intention to flame, I just felt this needed to be addressed. However, I find most of MasaMeet's post inflammatory, and unnecessary to the discussion.

If you don't know, then why bother posting your fears? Esp. in the LEO forum. You are simply showing yourself to be a paranoiac, which unfortunately seems to be the one common denominator among male Calgunners.

Honestly the LEO forum should not be a place for foolish conjecture by either LEOs or non-LEOs.

So if you guys had done some internet digging, you would have found the site that I mentioned earlier: The U.S. Dept. of Justice COPS Office (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=34). By clicking on "Managing COPS Grants," you would have found the federal guidelines every LEA that receives a stimulus grant via the COPS Hiring Recovery Program must adhere to.



After these paragraphs are one hyperlinked site followed by PDFed hyperlinks of the actual federal guidelines. Didn't bother reading the PDFs but you certainly can.

Congress authorized this COPS funding on Obama's request. He's doing a heckuva lot more than Bush 1 or 2 ever did for our nation's LEA and communities. Most likely after Oct. 1, another round of funding will be available.

retired
08-01-2009, 12:06 PM
The COPS program has been in existence since 1994; I was in the field when it began and some of the deputies I worked with were put on that team.

I don't know if masameet meant that Obama has requested Congress continue the funding or if he is stating Obama initiated the program, since that is not clear. I would expect him to clear that point up after reading your post.

Masameet, you need to back down on your rhetoric directed at fullrearview. As long as he doesn't violate the rules, he can post his concerns, notwithstanding your feelings in that regard. Furthermore, your opinion as to what the LEO forum should or should not be is of no import as Kestryll has already determined that.

PatriotnMore, you also need to tone it down. If you have a problem with a post, click on that red triangle or shoot me a pm, do not air your problem with another poster in the thread. Also, I will assume you merely misspelled his name when you wrote "MesaMeet" and it wasn't intentional.;)

If you guys wish to continue your debate/discussion in an adult way do so, but do so without the unnecessary comments. Thank you.

PatriotnMore
08-01-2009, 12:13 PM
The COPS program has been in existence since 1994; I was in the field when it began and some of the deputies I worked with were put on that team.

I don't know if masameet meant that Obama has requested Congress continue the funding or if he is stating Obama initiated the program, since that is not clear. I would expect him to clear that point up after reading your post.

Masameet, you need to back down on your rhetoric directed at fullrearview. As long as he doesn't violate the rules, he can post his concerns, notwithstanding your feelings in that regard. Furthermore, your opinion as to what the LEO forum should or should not be is of no import as Kestryll has already determined that.

PatriotnMore, you also need to tone it down. If you have a problem with a post, click on that red triangle or shoot me a pm, do not air your problem with another poster in the thread. Also, I will assume you merely misspelled his name when you wrote "MesaMeet" and it wasn't intentional.;)

If you guys wish to continue your debate/discussion in an adult way do so, but do so without the unnecessary comments. Thank you.


My apologies to all, thank you for the fair comments, Retired.:)

SVT-40
08-01-2009, 12:39 PM
Any monies received from a "grant" can only be used to fund the originally intended program.

The Federal grants given in the recent COPS" funding are for manpower. The monies are used for training, salary and benefits for how many number of LEO positions it can fund.

As far as "strings" well the grant is written so the funds are to only be spent on the intended positions. So that is the only string.


There are no other requirements regarding any additional hiring practices or additional political requirements.

The only danger these grant funded positions have is once the grant runs out the city or county must then fund the additional positions out of their budgets. Usually this in no problem because through normal attrition there are positions available.

The danger is mostly to small departments, as if there is not a funded position for the LEO to take when the grant monies run out then the grant position would be cut and the employee laid off.

The thought that "the evil fed" would somehow be able to manipulate local hiring or local enforcement rules is just paranoid. There are so many local rules and bargaining agreements in place that it would be impossible for the fed's to demand any changes.

fullrearview
08-01-2009, 7:21 PM
By no means am I trying to spread FUD, but I am really concerned about things in LE as well as everything else.

I got into Law Enforcement to protect people and their rights, not take them.

Fire in the Hole
08-01-2009, 7:47 PM
By no means am I trying to spread FUD, but I am really concerned about things in LE as well as everything else.

I got into Law Enforcement to protect people and their rights, not take them.

Well then, I'd say that you got in for all the right reasons.

Fire in the Hole
08-01-2009, 7:49 PM
Any monies received from a "grant" can only be used to fund the originally intended program.

The Federal grants given in the recent COPS" funding are for manpower. The monies are used for training, salary and benefits for how many number of LEO positions it can fund.

As far as "strings" well the grant is written so the funds are to only be spent on the intended positions. So that is the only string.


There are no other requirements regarding any additional hiring practices or additional political requirements.

The only danger these grant funded positions have is once the grant runs out the city or county must then fund the additional positions out of their budgets. Usually this in no problem because through normal attrition there are positions available.

The danger is mostly to small departments, as if there is not a funded position for the LEO to take when the grant monies run out then the grant position would be cut and the employee laid off.

The thought that "the evil fed" would somehow be able to manipulate local hiring or local enforcement rules is just paranoid. There are so many local rules and bargaining agreements in place that it would be impossible for the fed's to demand any changes.


And this is precisely why my local small SO and PD had to say, "Thanks, but no thanks." to the last $ program. Specificaly the School Resource Officer Positions.