An evaluation of the Department of Defense's excess property program : law enforcement agency equipment acquisition policies, findings, and options / Aaron C. Davenport, Jonathan William Welburn, Andrew Lauland, Annelise Pietenpol, Marc Robbins, Erin Rebhan, Patricia Boren, K. Jack Riley.
"RAND National Defense Research Institute." "Prepared for the Defense Logistics Agency." "This research was ... conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute"--Preface. Includes bibliographical references (pages 83-87). Summarized by RAND/RB-10020-OSD.
Contents:
Introduction -- Excess Property and LESO Program Processes -- Transfers, Losses, Suspensions, Terminations, and Rebuys -- Stakeholder Interviews -- Public Perceptions -- Optional Paths Ahead -- Appendix A: Executive Order 13688 -- Appendix B: Executive Order 13809 -- Appendix C: Standardized Interview Protocol for State Coordinators and State POCs -- Appendix D: Standardized Interview Protocol for LEA Officials.
Summary:
The Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA’s) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) provides excess Department of Defense property—everything from desks to rifles to airplanes—to local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across the United States. Because of the sensitive nature of some of the material transferred to LEAs, LESO has been the subject of congressional, Government Accountability Office, and public scrutiny for almost two decades. Recent events—including the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri, protests—increased interest in the program. Opponents of the program argued that LESO was at least partially responsible for what they perceived to be an increased militarization of the police, while proponents believed that this program not only made police and citizens safer but exemplified good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act required an evaluation of the LESO program, which provides thousands of LEAs with millions of dollars of excess property annually. The authors of this report find that LESO manages an efficient program that effectively reuses excess property, benefits the law enforcement community, responds diligently to oversight, and is faithful to congressional intent. However, these efforts are unlikely to resolve perceptions that the program contributes to the militarization of police. Defining what is or is not appropriate militarization of police forces and addressing concerns of how the excess property is employed and its effect on community policing is beyond the authority of DLA. This report presents three optional paths ahead.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.