This paper examines the public finance of law enforcement organizations, identifying taxpayers, public employees, and elected officials as key stakeholders in the budgeting process. It discusses revenue sources including municipal taxes, bonds, grants, fundraisers, and civil asset forfeiture, and describes the city-level budget cycle from revenue forecasting in February through final publication in October. The paper also reflects on how persistent budget shortfalls can distort police behavior, particularly through controversial practices such as targeting individuals for civil asset forfeiture to generate departmental revenue, raising questions about the relationship between funding pressures and community trust.
The most important stakeholders in the public finance of law enforcement organizations are the taxpayers. Without collected taxes, the government could not afford to fund these organizations. Municipal taxes, bonds, grants, and more all go toward funding law enforcement. State and local taxes pay salaries and pensions for retiring officers, and yet many municipal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are still required to borrow in order to meet structural requirements. Many cities run a continual budgetary deficit, with mounting debts putting pensions at risk. This is common across America, with states like Kentucky and Illinois essentially sitting on a time bomb of debt.
This fiscal pressure impacts the other key stakeholders: the workers within law enforcement agencies, the public who depend on those agencies for safety, and the elected officials who must oversee plans for allocating resources for budgetary purposes. As a result of this serious need to fund law enforcement, fundraisers are also used to obtain funds (FTC, 2016).
Property auctions and task force seizures also serve as sources of income for police departments. Civil asset forfeiture is a law that allows police to confiscate the property of anyone accused of a crime if they believe the property is in some way connected to criminal activity. Profits from forfeiture can be used to fund the general law enforcement department or directed to a fund for promoting some form of public safety program in the city or state (Sullivan, 2014).
The basic process through which budgetary decisions were made in my previous place of employment followed the broader process used by the city. City members met in February and followed the Revenue Manual guidelines to predict what the city's revenue and revenue stream sources would be for the upcoming year. They would examine the revenue cycle, tax collection, interest, and other variables to determine a list of projected costs.
The city was required to produce a budget every year, and the process was extensive, stretching across most of the year with an official budget not published until October. Between February and October, core services were acknowledged, a capital improvement plan was devised, and staffing needs were assessed. This was followed by administrative review, an overview by the City Manager, and legislative review. Throughout this period, the local media reported on advances made toward the budget. Other cities and states received far more media scrutiny — especially those that failed to pass a budget. Media pressure in such instances is substantial, particularly given that political careers are at stake, as are the livelihoods of public workers whose jobs depend on incentives such as pensions.
"Shortfalls push police toward controversial revenue practices"
For example, some officers will lie in wait for individuals they suspect may later be driving drunk — particularly if that person has a nice car the police would like to seize and sell at auction to raise money for the department (Sullivan, 2014). Unfortunately, this type of activity does not endear the police to the community, as it is widely viewed as controversial even though civil asset forfeiture is perfectly legal. The tension between fiscal necessity and community trust is a defining challenge for departments operating under chronic budget pressure.
The funding concerns of law enforcement departments are a genuine reality, and police agencies will take the steps they deem necessary to ensure that funding is secured. However, when revenue pressures drive policing decisions, the relationship between officers and the communities they serve can be undermined. Understanding the full scope of public finance mechanisms available to law enforcement — from taxes and grants to asset forfeiture and fundraising — is essential for policymakers and citizens alike seeking to balance fiscal sustainability with equitable, community-centered policing.
FTC. (2016). Fundraisers calling on behalf of police and firefighters. Retrieved from
Sullivan, L. (2014). Police can seize and sell assets even when the owner broke no law. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.