HD59 - Study on Regional Criminal Justice Training Academy Fees: Training Services Provided to Non-Governmental Agencies or Organizations


Executive Summary:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) was directed by the 2004 Session of the General Assembly to study the fees assessed by regional criminal justice training academies for training provided to non-governmental agencies and to determine if these fees fully cover training costs. The results of this study and any recommendations are to be submitted to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

In order to comply with the directives for this study, DCJS conducted interviews with representatives of the Virginia Chiefs of Police Association, the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association, selected regional academy directors, and surveyed all regional academies. In addition, past and current funding formulas and allocations were reviewed. In Budget Year FY 2004-2005, the regional academies will receive $914,585 in General Fund monies and approximately $1,451,455 from Special Fund monies. This represents a total decrease of $274,385 in state funding since 1998. These funds are distributed based on the officer population of local agencies served. Money authorized and distributed by DCJS is not solely based on being a member of the academy. Private police and state agencies are not counted in the total officer population for determination of state funding.

Since training costs exceed the state funding provided, all regional academies assess their member agencies, both public and private, a per-officer-membership fee. Seven of the ten regional academies provide training services to non-governmental agencies. Of the seven, five charge the same fee for both private and public agencies. However, six of the seven also receive in-kind services such as instructor assistance, equipment, supplies, and facilities to supplement what they receive in membership fees. While most academies have not calculated the dollar value of these in-kind services received, they believe the costs of the services would be substantial and having to pay for them would place an additional burden on public agency members. Only one regional academy, New River, reported receiving no in-kind services from their private agency members.

While it appears that most (five) of the seven academies providing services to private agencies are subsidizing the costs of these services with state funds, that is not likely to be the case once the in-kind support from the private agencies is taken into account. However, because the academies generally do not document the value of in-kind services received, it is difficult to definitively show equity in the fees assessed private and public agencies. As a result, DCJS makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation A: Regional academies providing services to non-governmental agencies should distinguish these services in a separate line item in their budgets. The cost of providing training to these agencies should be determined separately from other agencies supported with state funds. Any additional costs to provide training to non-governmental agencies should be reflected in their fee structure minus any value for in-kind and other non-revenue services provided.

Recommendation B: All regional academies should accurately document the value of any in-kind services, equipment, supplies, facilities, or other services received from all member agencies. This documentation should be included in the academies’ annual audits. If the value of these services, along with the fees charged, are not sufficient to cover the cost of providing training to non-governmental agencies, the fees charged to them should be adjusted to cover any cost deficit. Documentation of annual audits, including the value consideration for in-kind and other non-revenue services, should be provided to DCJS.

Recommendation C:

C1. Since it would be very difficult to determine the amount of state funds, if any, that may have been used to support private agency training, it is recommended that the Commonwealth not pursue recovery of past differences in membership fees.

C2. Recommendations A and B should be instituted. Any discrepancies between membership fees for private agencies and the value of in-kind services, and the actual costs of training during an independent audit, should be reported to DCJS. The difference reported would be withheld by DCJS from the State General Fund appropriations for that academy. DCJS should develop a policy for obtaining the audit reports, withholding General Fund appropriations when necessary, and a process for redistribution of these funds to the non-offending academies.