Where was the liberal “outrage” over Clinton’s “COPS in School” federal grant program?

Posted by: ST on December 22, 2012 at 11:57 am

Another day, another sad yet infuriating adventure into “that was then, this is now” Democrat hypocrisy – via Bryan Preston:

The NRA came out with a proposal to post armed police officers at schools to prevent or at least minimize the next school shooting. The left promptly called the idea nuts.

Turns out, it wasn’t a new idea. President Bill Clinton proposed the same idea in April 2000. He implemented it, too, only to see Barack Obama cut the funding for it.

So, if you’re keeping score, the NRA agrees with a 12-year old Bill Clinton position on school security. The left just called a former Democrat president “crazy.”

The program Preston is talking about is called “COPS in School” – a federal grant program started in 1999:

The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

The COPS in Schools program provides a maximum federal contribution up of to $125,000 per officer position for approved salary and benefit costs over the 3-year grant period, with any remaining costs to be paid with local funds. Officers paid with CIS funding must be hired on or after the grant award start date. All jurisdictions that apply must also demonstrate that they have primary law enforcement authority over the school(s) identified in their application, and also demonstrate their inability to implement this project without federal assistance. Funding will begin when the new officers are hired on or after the grant award date, and will be paid over the course of the 3-year grant period.

COPS has announced 19  rounds of funding under the COPS in Schools program, including five that were a part of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, a joint initiative between the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant program was developed to provide students, schools, and communities with the benefit of enhanced educational, mental health, and law enforcement services to promote a comprehensive healthy childhood development.

That page was an old page that covered through 2005. I don’t know what the status of the federal program is now, but I did see this recent article from KMOV that sheds a little light:

ST. LOUIS COUNTY (KMOv.com) — Law enforcment and schools around St. Louis are asking Congress to help prevent another attack like the tragedy in Connecticut.

More than 100 school leaders met with area police departments to discuss school safety.

Officials plan to ask Congress to renew the Cops In School initiative. Federal funding to put officers in schools ended in 2003.

“So what we’re looking for is for Congress to reinstitute the Cops in Schools program, said St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch. “We think that’s the best way to deal with an armed intruder, is to have a fully trained, armed police officer on the property.”


The best I can piece together here is that, contra to the KMOV piece, this program on a federal level ended in 2005, but there at the state level, I know there are cops on the premises in select school districts around the country – presumably due to state funding.

In any event, what we have here is the head of the NRA calling for more armed police officers in school, something that is already in place at the local level and – at least for a time was supported at the federal level thanks to a push by President Bill Clinton, yet the Usual Suspects and other Useful Idiots are screaming for the NRA’s head on a stick right now, outraged at such a suggestion.   Where were they when Clinton first put this in place, and where have they been at the school districts that already do provided armed police/guards on site?

Liberal stupidity and hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.  The debate on “gun control” and whether or not to have more armed security in the schools deserves serious consideration of all options on the table, not hollow, ignorant, ill-informed,  half-baked arguments based purely on emotion and visceral bias against guns.  Would someone alert the mainstream media, please? This starts with them – but certainly doesn’t end there.

Update – Monday 1:20 PM: Here’s a screencap for the idiotic, obnoxious liberals trying to comment that they don’t see a “COPS in Schools” page at the link I provided above – which I just clicked and got this from:

COPS in Scoools screencap

COPS in Scoools screencap

Any more questions? Right.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


20 Responses to “Where was the liberal “outrage” over Clinton’s “COPS in School” federal grant program?”


  1. Tully says:

    I can tell you the status of the program. The all-Dem Congresss of ’07 let the funding trickle away to almost nothing, and the ’09 incoming Obama admin drove a stake through its heart. “It’s dead, Jim.”

    Some communities (like mine) dug deep to keep some of our School Resource Officers. And some just gave up when the funding disappeared in the face of the recession.

  2. The thing that is truly amazing is the number of people who enter these types of discussions who obviously do not know a Glock from a glockenspiel; their comments expose their ignorance. To be legally licensed to carry a weapon requires a state-sanctioned course which consists of a classroom phase (laws, legal liability, common misconceptions, etc.) and a proficiency phase (safe handling and use of a weapon). Once that is done the entire packet of forms, including the instructor’s recommendation, is sent to the state for criminal history screening.

    If trying to fix a price on someone’s life, on which most of the budgetary discussion is centered, designate someone already on the payroll to assume the armed security function such as the principal and faculty members. Again, it is the “Israeli model”. You cannot fight fire without fire.

  3. Carlos says:

    “…not hollow, ignorant, ill-informed, half-baked arguments based purely on emotion and visceral bias…”

    In any discussion with a lib/leftist/Democrap/LSM waterboy, one must compete with all the inadequacies listed, no matter what the subject…

    I suspect that, even if Duh-1 had a real, true “Come to Jesus” moment and announced prayer in schools would commence immediately and the Ten Commandments were to be posted in every federal building and Nativity scenes displayed in front of every federal building, the moonbats would acquiesce, waiting to see what nefarious plan he had to screw the common folk. That’s the way they “think,” the way they live their lives and the way they expect the world to act.

    For folk that don’t believe in “Original Sin” and believe in the innate goodness of mankind, it seems an awful lot like they don’t like or believe in their fellow man, doesn’t it?

  4. BobC says:

    I agree with Drew the Infidel…I’ve been saying all along that we have the people already on the municipal payroll – teachers, administrators, etc. No legs for the argument that its too expensive. Train and certify people at each public school. No need for hiring new SROs.

  5. derfallbright says:

    The NRA was on the right track, but their idea of putting armed ‘volunteers’ in the schools is just simply unreasonable for most modern school districts.

    No matter how well trained and how good the intentions of a volunteer might be, most insurance companies are simply not going to cover the liability for this kind of thing.

    And lets be honest, you are going to have the greatest need for the armed guards in the intercity high crime areas, and their are going to be far fewer people willing to volunteer to work in high crime schools.

    it think it would have been a greater gesture for the NRA to have sponsored a large grant to support the schools use of regular law enforcement officers. Maybe serving as a central coordinator to collect donations from major gun manufacturers and I grit my teeth when I say this, maybe support a dedicated state or local tax on gun and ammunition sales targeted at support of law enforcement officers in schools.

    In all truth these mass killings by mad men can occur anywhere, but schools seem to be the one location that the Left and Right can agree are sitting ducks because they have been so publicly declared gun free zones.

  6. andom says:

    wait a moment!
    I read that “An estimated one-third of all sheriffs’ offices and almost half of all municipal police departments assign nearly 17,000 sworn officers
    to serve in schools. Moreover, nearly half of all public schools have
    assigned police officers” from this 2010 paper

    Do we know if in the schools were we have seen massacres there were these officers?

  7. Carlos says:

    Hate to disagree with you, derfallbright, but inner city schools are probably the one place you won’t find the need for SROs or volunteers, for exactly the reason most suburban/rural/outskirt-city schools DO need them, and that’s because anyone brighter than a two-watt bulb who can spirit a gun into an inner city school knows that, with the gangs, the chances of getting shot back at are increased dramatically.

    That being said, however, I wouldn’t recommend stocking all schools with gangs, and I’m afraid that’s exactly the kind of solution our unicorn feeders will come up with – the “solution” will be worse than the problem!

  8. CaMom says:

    My husband is a lifetime NRA member – has been around all sorts of weapons since he could walk (coming from a very active hunting family). He’s retired, and would be proud and honored to volunteer to cruise the campus of our local, rural grade school and middle school, to help insure the safety and security of the children.

  9. BigTimeLib says:

    I think you Looney Bin types are missing the point (as you usually tend to do). You’ll notice that the NRA isn’t calling for a ban on Assault Weapons (or “Weapons of War”, as the President so eloquently called them). Their solution is to demand armed guards, and even armed voluteers, at every single school in the US of A. Their solution is to NOT ban weapons that should only be in the hands of the Miliary and Law Enforcement. That’s the “Nuts” part! Can you imagine! “Yeah, I’m not gonna give up my semi-auto, so you better put some cops in your schools just in case some maniac shows up to kill lots of kids w/his semi-auto.” And, yes, shame of Presindent Clinton for not getting the ball rolling on a ban after the Columbine massacre. And, as pointed out above, most of the funding for that COPS program ended in 2005, under the Bush Adminstration. Cuts had to be made in order to fight that illegal war in the middle east.

  10. kevin trudell says:

    Anyone who thinks armed guards in schools is a solution to this stuff is a fool. What armed personell means is only five people will die , rather than fifteen. Wow! Victory! Problem solved! only five dead kids.

  11. Excellent point ST an I’d forgotten all about Bill Clinton’s “cops in schools.”

    It’s kind of like missile defense; on it’s own you’d think it would be the ONE defense program liberals would champion. After all, by itself missile defense doesn’t kill anyone and doesn’t threaten anyone. It’s the perfect liberal defense weapon But because Reagan proposed, it, they’re against it.

  12. Carlos says:

    To BigTimeLib and kevin trudell: yeah, we knuckledraggers have a real problem with reality, imagining that what happens in the real world is reality, not what happens in our imaginations. Such ignorance is astounding!

    BTL, do you really think that imagining that if every “assault weapon” is banned, they would magically disappear from the hands of wackos (most of whom, it turns out, are either apolitical or very statist)? What happens to all the weapons that magically “disappear” from military armories yearly? Do they just cease to exist? If that’s what you believe, not only do your unicorns need feeding but I’ve got some prime ocean beachfront property near Pahrump that I can sell you for a very reasonable price.

    And KT, the point isn’t that “only five kids were killed.” The point is that under any scenario kids are going to die in a school shooting, and as long as there is a school system there will be shootings. If your concern is truly “for the kids” (which would be very unusual for a lib – that’s simply an excuse for “we statists want more power”) then it’s time for you to wake up and smell the evil that is around you and decide that limiting the damage to “the kids” is the best scenario possible. (BTW, the “evil that is around you” isn’t the smell of conservatives, it’s the willful ignorance of acknowledging just how atrocious humans can be.)

  13. dj says:

    Very odd. I can’t find anything that links to a program called “Cops in Schools” by the Clinton administration. There was a program his administration called COPS–Community Oriented Policing Services–where they would fund 100,000 more cops in the US to get involved in their communities. This meant that cops could serve as coaches and mentors in schools, but that their policing duties would mainly still be in the community, not the schools. In addition, the program funded addition security systems for schools, like metal detectors. If someone can truly find a link to what is being called “Cops in Schools,” please post it. I’ve looked on the DOJ COPS page, etc. Nothing. And, the defunding of COPS was the Bush administration, not the dems. In fact, Obama refunded it through the stimulus program to add cops into cities, but of course the repubs fought the stimulus. It isn’t too difficult to check this on the stimulus website so feel free.

  14. ST says:

    dj, you’re a freaking idiot. Check the update I just posted for a screencap of the COPS in Schools page. I suspect you never clicked on the link to begin with, did you? Funny, as I just clicked on the link and got the exact page that came up the first time. Stop trying to misinform people, and furthermore, insinuating I’m lying doesn’t do anything for your credibility since it’s likely you never clicked on the link to begin with.

    You’re on borrowed time on this site, so if you respond, you better make it worth both my and my readers’ time.

  15. Carlos says:

    @dj: I’m just about as tech-illiterate as one can get, and even I could follow the instructions. Your willful ignorance is astoundingly evident in your lack of capabilities.