Incidents of obviously inappropriate behavior by police officials toward African-American citizens have inspired mass demonstrations throughout the country. These demonstrations are demanding changes in law enforcement policies and procedures that will eliminate inappropriate violence and prejudice. A major rallying cry during these demonstrations has been “Defund the Police.”
In the United States the principal police power has been reserved to the states. They have the prime responsibility for providing for public health, welfare, and safety. The Federal Government enforces its own laws and may limit state and local law enforcement activities through civil rights legislation and financial incentives for behavioral changes on the part of states. Local law enforcement operates under the “color of state law.”
I spent a number of years participating in the training of public officials. Most of the served or intended to serve in local government. Some of them were police officers, and two eventually became police chiefs. My principal focus was on budgeting and financial management so the cry to “Defund the Police” was certain to capture my attention. If the demands of demonstrators are to be heeded, one must answer, in specific terms, the old communist, V.I. Lenin. “What is to be Done?”
Slogans are wonderful tools for exciting a crowd to demonstrate. They usually are poor devices for developing a plan of action. It is clear that there are many different explanations of what “Defund the Police” means. Unless they are totally tone deaf, local administrators must, by now, know that the public wants to stop unnecessary and even illegal police behavior. Furthermore, they want the police to stop treating citizens differently based upon their race or any other arbitrary category.
Some demonstrators wish to take the slogan literally. They want to dismantle the police departments and to replace them with “community-based law enforcement. The Seattle Capitol Hill experiment represents such an approach. Much of the existing funding could, in theory, be diverted to providing other vital services in cases of domestic disputes, conflict resolution, and substance abuse. This assumes a stable community with clearly shared values that is protected from outside invasion. It also ignores the fact that many of the cases listed above involve violence. Worse yet, the increasing availability of firearms broadens the danger for individuals and the community. Finally, the presence of police officers on patrol 24/7 raises them to the level of first responders. Whom does the counseling psychologist who is available at three in the morning to deal with an armed man beating his wife call for help, and how long does it take the help to get there? Whom does my neighbor call when an armed individual is attempting to enter his home uninvited?
For others, “Defund the Police” seems to mean a reduction of current levels of funding in favor of increased in social services that could address the root causes of anti-social behavior. This is a much simpler administrative problem for a mayor or city manager. I just allocate twenty percent of the police budget to these other social services. But it is not so simple for the police chief. Where does she cut? She could cut equipment by not replacing vehicles that have over 200,000 miles or by delaying the purchase of those expensive cameras and recording equipment. Policing is labor intensive. She could reduce the number of officers or reduce the pay of the existing force. Reductions in force and mobility inevitably lead to lower response times, and victims of criminal or otherwise anti-social activity are unlikely to view this as progress. Reduced salaries are likely to result in reduced quality of police protection. More cameras are likely to move us toward our goals. Fewer are not.
Another suggestion for improvement has been around for a number of years and that is “community policing.” The idea is that by bringing police officers and community members closer together, unnecessary conflict may be avoided. The recreated Camden, New Jersey police department represents an example. This approach requires more person to person contact through routine neighborhood policing and sponsored events. Advocates recommending getting officers out of their vehicles and onto foot patrol. The problem is that one is not likely to achieve good community policing by defunding the police. Foot patrols require more police to achieve the same effective area coverage as is possible with vehicular patrols. Moreover, effective interpersonal interaction is more time consuming than simple patrols.
The underlying assumption of “defund the police” is that the problem is systemic and organizational. By changing the economic support for the organization, one can effect a change in the behavior of individual members. Experience over the years has taught me that the behavioral change that follows reduced funding for an organization is rarely positive. The proper course of action is to decide upon the desired mix of governmental services and to provide funding at the appropriate levels.
There is no doubt that government in this country is not doing a universally good job of providing for public health, welfare, and safety. Many of us enjoy high levels of service in these areas, while others experience little or no service. Defunding any of those areas is unacceptable. Funding needs to be increased in all of these areas. In law enforcement or public safety, funds must be provided to support community policing activities, increased training of officers, and systems of accountability. Funds should be provided to insure that other public service professionals are immediately available to assist police or to take over from them when appropriate.
When public funding issues are debated, we sometimes gain agreement on the virtues of the services to be provided. Then, we insist that the funding will be provided by eliminating unnecessary services, eliminating waste and corruption, or by taxing the rich and corporations. Even if all of those worthy goals were achieved, we are unlikely to identify sufficient funding to meet the legitimate needs of government. Most careful economic models suggest that improving these services will require raising taxes on the middle class as well. It is not likely that we will see large numbers of citizens taking to the streets to demand such action.
Finally, the most important action to be taken is one which many police departments have already begun. Departments, in conjunction with community leadership, must define their own culture. Behavioral norms must be specific. Consequences for not following those norms must also be specific. If you violate the rules, you cannot play the game. Adjudication must be swift and fair. Neither arbitrary supervisors nor union representatives must be allowed to rule. If outright criminal activity is alleged, then normal judicial processes must be applied. State and local legislators and executives should have little difficulty in defining such a culture.